Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

SAINT BENET GRACECHURCH BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

FALKIRK BURGH EXTENSION, &C., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINA (TRADE TALKS)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now make a statement on the progress of the meat talks with the Argentine.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the progress of the meat negotiations in the Argentine.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), on 12th March.

Mr. Harrison: In view of the reply which he has just given, will my right hon. Friend take steps to restrain Conservative newspapers from publishing highly insulting articles concerning the head of a friendly State—Argentina—such as that published in the "Daily Mail" on Monday of this week?

Mr. Morrison: I follow my hon. Friend's point, but I have no power to restrain newspapers.

Mr. Turton: To assist the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in his task, will the right hon. Gentleman consider flying out to Argentina a member of the

meat trade who has knowledge of South American problems?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider the application of the hon. Member.

Air Commodore Harvey: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us how these negotiations are going? Does he not realise that millions of people are dependent on them, and want something to look forward to?

Mr. Morrison: I fully understand and realise the purport of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question.

Mr. A. Lewis: Can the Foreign Secretary give us an assurance that, as soon as it is possible to make a factual statement on these negotiations, he will arrange for such a statement to be given to the House?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE (WHITE PAPER)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his attendance at the Council of Europe, held recently in Paris.

Mr. H. Morrison: A White Paper on the proceedings of the last session of the Committee of Ministers will shortly be presented to Parliament.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, rightly or wrongly, the impression has been created on the Continent that H.M. Government are unsympathetic, if not actually hostile, to the objects of the Council of Europe? Will he make every effort to correct this most damaging impression?

Mr. Morrison: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman may have had something to do with that impression. In any case, that impression is a misapprehension.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (MEETING)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now


make a statement concerning the recent talks held in Paris, of the Foreign Secretaries' deputies.

Mr. H. Morrison: I should prefer to make no statement on this subject at the present time. I shall, however, be very willing to make a statement as soon as the progress of the talks in Paris justifies me in doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (PEACE TREATY)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action His Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that any peace treaty with Germany shall enforce some form of compensation to non-Jewish and non-German people who suffered under the Nazis.

Mr. H. Morrison: His Majesty's Government are unable to give any undertaking regarding the possible provisions of an eventual peace treaty with Germany.

Major Beamish: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can give me some more sympathetic reply than that. Is he aware that non-Jewish and non-German people who suffered under the Nazis went through a most appalling time and had no one to speak on their behalf? I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have been more sympathetic.

Mr. Morrison: I cannot be at this stage. It is not a question of being sympathetic or unsympathetic. This is the situation—

Hon. Members: What is the situation?

Mr. Morrison: What I have said—that we are unable to give any undertaking regarding the possible provisions of an eventual peace treaty with Germany.

Mr. Eden: Could not the right hon. Gentleman, at least, undertake that this aspect of the matter, which is very serious to many people, will be in the minds of our negotiators when they come to discuss the matter?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly. That is another matter, but we will keep all relevant considerations in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (OIL CONCESSIONS)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the boundaries of the 100,000 acre concession to the Anglo-Iranian Company have now been demarcated on the ground.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. Under its 1933 Concession Agreement with the Persian Government, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was granted the right to select, within a given region of South-Western Persia, an area or areas not exceeding 100,000 English square miles (not acres, as stated in the Question). These areas were duly selected and, as required by the terms of the Concession Agreement, were identified by maps and by the data necessary to define them. The Concession Agreement does not require these areas to be denned in any other way.

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the action of the Persian Parliament in regard to the Anglo-Iranian oil concessions and similar movements which are starting in Iraq, and in view of the Persian claim to Bahrein in the Persian Gulf, he will consult with the United States of America in order that both countries may have a common policy over oil concessions in the Middle East.

Mr. H. Morrison: We are in consultation with the United States Government and will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (BRITISH SHIPS)

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Egyptian Government has acquired more British motor torpedo boats than the Navy has in com mission at the moment, he will take steps to ensure that no further releases of British naval vessels and equipment shall be made available to the Egyptian Government.

Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Lady appears to be misinformed. Although such motor torpedo boats as have been acquired by Egypt in this country since 1949 have been boats bought direct from the trade, my information is that the Egyptian Navy have considerably fewer


motor torpedo boats of British construction in commission than the Royal Navy. No naval vessels or equipment have in any case recently been sold to Egypt unless surplus to the requirements of the Royal Navy, and those of our North Atlantic Treaty and Commonwealth Allies. The same criteria will continue to apply generally to further inquiries for ships or equipment for the Egyptian Navy.

Miss Ward: Would the right hon. Gentleman say under what circumstances a quantity of modern torpedo sights have been recently released to the Egyptian Navy? Under what policy have they reached that country?

Mr. Morrison: I did not notice that sights were mentioned in the Question.

Miss Ward: But did the right hon. Gentleman not say "no equipment"?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Lady wanted to mention sights she could have put that down.

Brigadier Head: When the right hon. Gentleman said that motor torpedo boats were bought direct from the trade am I not right in saying that the trade have to get the permission of the Admiralty before they allow the Egyptian Government to have them?

Mr. Morrison: They need to have permission, but I am not sure whether it is from the Admiralty. I should like to know what hon. Members opposite want. I do not know whether they wish us to apply a complete blockade.

Brigadier Head: What hon. Members on this side want is that the Navy's requirements should be satisfied first and the Egyptian Government's requirements second.

Mr. Morrison: A number of hon. Members opposite have not listened to my reply. I have said precisely that that was exactly what we were doing.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. NORMAN MANLEY, K.C. (DETENTION, ELLIS ISLAND)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will investigate the circumstances in which Mr. Norman Manley, K.C., a member of the

Jamaican House of Representatives, was recently detained on Ellis Island by the United States immigration authorities; and what representation he has addressed to the United States Government on this matter.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been informed by His Majesty's Consul-General at New York that Mr. Manley was detained for about three hours only, and I do not propose to take any action.

Mr. Driberg: Is it not rather an extraordinary thing that this distinguished Commonwealth statesman should be subject to these indignities on his way back from appearing before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the very day after he had dined in this House with the Secretary of State for the Colonies? Should my right hon. Friend not take some steps to see that British subjects, and members of Legislative Assemblies, are not subjected to these indignities?

Mr. Morrison: Naturally, I am sorry about it but I think that for a delay of three hours—which, even so, I regret—my hon. Friend is making rather excessively high weather about it. I was not detained in New York for three hours, but I once had a difficult reception and I put up with it like a sportsman.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Manley has described the conditions of his detention as almost like being in prison?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now any statement to make as to the progress of his efforts to obtain payment from Albania of the damages due under The Hague Court judgment in respect of the mining of His Majesty's ships in the Corfu Channel.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his Undersecretary of State indicated five weeks ago that His Majesty's Government accepted responsibility for taking action to enforce this judgment? Can he say whether any such action has now been taken?

Mr. Morrison: I do not want to be too specific on this matter at this moment, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all we can about it.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman be specific enough to say whether there has yet been any admission from the Albanian side that any of this money is due?

Mr. Morrison: I would really prefer not to be more specific today.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA (DETAINED BRITISH SHIPS)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking to secure the release of the s.s. "Mawai" and s.s. "Membau" detained in Sumatra; what was the pretext for their detention; and whether the Indonesian Government has been requested to pay compensation for this detention.

Mr. H. Morrison: His Majesty's Consul at Medan made immediate representations to the Governor of North Sumatra for the release of the s.s. "Mawai" and s.s. "Membau" as well as of six other British registered ships which were detained in Sumatra. Subsequently, His Majesty's Ambassador at Djakarta took the matter up with the Indonesian Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister. The "Mawai" and "Membau" have now been released.
The reason originally given for detention of these ships was their failure to comply with regulations requiring that they should call at the control port of Sabang. Subsequently, it was alleged that they were engaged in smuggling. I have not been informed that any claim for compensation has been submitted by the ships' owners.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that the two ships mentioned in the Question, in addition to six others disclosed by the right hon. Gentleman, were detained for a substantial period, can he now assure the House that any claim for compensation for the detention of these ships will be energetically supported by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Morrison: No claim has yet been submitted by the ships' owners. If such

a claim were submitted we would, of course, consider supporting it.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the ships were detained rather longer than Mr. Manley?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (OVERSEAS SERVICES)

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the factors which led him to agree to the reduction in his Department's grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation for its overseas broadcasts.

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which are the countries which will be affected by the reduction in broadcasts which will have to be made as a result of the cut in his Department's grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation for its overseas broadcasts; what proportion of the reductions will be from transmissions in English; and what from those in the languages of the respective countries concerned.

Mr. H. Morrison: It was originally proposed that the B.B.C.'s grant-in-aid for the financial year 1951–52 should be £5,330,000. But the grant-in-aid for 1950–51 was £4,685,000 and in view of the pressing need for economy in public expenditure in the interest of the taxpayer, the Government have not thought fit to give an increased grant-in-aid and have fixed it at £4,650,000. It is, therefore, misleading to assume that, in fact, there is any major cut in the expenditure which the B.B.C. will be making as compared with last year. It is a fact, however, that owing to increased costs and certain additional obligations, some economies will have to be made elsewhere in the B.B.C.'s overseas services. Since I have taken up my present post I have had under consideration in consultation with the B.B.C. the question of how this can best be done, and I am not yet prepared to make a final announcement.

Mr. Profumo: Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that these broadcasts form an indispensable part of our overall plan to avert another war? Further, is he aware that in the last 18 months the Soviet Union


has doubled its foreign output and the United States of America are asking for £35 million a year extra for such broadcasts? Is it not plumb crazy to suggest a false economy of this sort while, at the same time, the Government are asking us to spend double this amount on the Festival Gardens?

Mr. Morrison: That was a really first-class propaganda supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, that is what it was. I certainly do not underestimate the importance of broadcasting in connection with matters of this sort. I would not like the House to think, however, that that is the only thing that requires to be done in the present situation. I have a responsibility to co-operate with the Chancellor in the matter of public expenditure and I am not going to be squeezed by the interests concerned to give them everything they want. The matter is being most carefully considered. We will solve this problem in the best way we can, with the best ends in view. I would ask the House to accept that assurance and not to press me to go wild on public expenditure in this matter because we must have a sense of relativity in these times.

Mr. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind two considerations which concern many people? First, can he assure us that the limitations which he is seeking to impose will not result in reduced broadcasting to the countries to which broadcasts already go out? Second, can he say when he will be able to give us a considered statement on where we stand, so that the House may consider the position?

Mr. Morrison: I should think fairly soon.

Mr. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman take this matter a little more seriously? Is he aware that some of us believe that this is more important in certain respects even than re-armament expenditure?—[Laughter]—I do not know why hon. Members opposite should giggle, but those of us who had to do with propaganda in the war feel very keenly about this. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is in the Foreign Office will he look at this through the Foreign Office spectacles as well as Treasury spectacles?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman may be assured that, in my present position, I am bound to look at it through Foreign Office spectacles, but I do say that there is responsibility on a spending Minister to co-operate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as far as he can. I do not at all underestimate the considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. I shall not be unsympathetic about it, but there are means of effecting economies without necessarily damaging the fundamentals of this service.

Mr. John E. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend considering fully the international political implications of this cut in this service at the present time when, as the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) said, both America and Russia are increasing their services? Will he particularly take note that this service is the only propaganda weapon we have against Eastern Europe at present, and do everything he can to avoid a cut while maintaining economy?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot agree that our own standards of economy in public expenditure have to be determined by the Soviet Union or the United States. We must consider them on the merits of the case. I am anxious to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend to the fullest possible extent, but I am not going to be submissive to an agitation that comes from certain quarters, calculated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I know perfectly well where it comes from. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] The decision as to public expenditure and the taxpayers' burden has to be the responsibility of the Government in the first place, and of the House of Commons.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the "certain quarters" to which he referred? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Could I have a reply to my question? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the agitation comes from certain quarters. Could we be informed where those certain quarters are to be found?

Commander Noble: On a point of order. Is it right, Sir, for the Foreign Secretary to make these insinuations without giving any explanation?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Wyatt: As the Opposition has spent the last five and a half years in this House fighting to get these services cut, is it not remarkable evidence of the success of these services that the Opposition should now be converted to their necessity? Will not my right hon. Friend very carefully consider representations from all quarters of the House, now that we have the Opposition added, to have this cut restored?

Mr. Morrison: Let us be clear about the cut. This was a demand for a materially increased expenditure, and the cut is negligible compared with the expenditure of the last financial year. It is perfectly true that time after time the Opposition have urged that the Government were spending too much money. It is true that they have stated, in particular, that the Government were spending too much money on information services at home and abroad. At home, we have cut by 20 per cent. I am bound to say that this gives added emphasis to what I said earlier.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman produce one shred of evidence of the demand for a reduction in our broadcasting services abroad?

Mr. Morrison: There have been denunciations in Conservative publications of our total information expenditure and I must draw the attention of the taxpayer to the point that the Opposition are now vigorously demanding an increase in that expenditure.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he may say that the cut itself is negligible, the effect upon our influence in vital areas abroad may be quite disastrous?

Mr. Morrison: I do not agree in the least.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: While not under-estimating in any way the value of these broadcasts, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that in the last analysis more good is done to our standing and position in the world by the actual social, political and economic achievements of this country during the past five years, which have been continually depreciated by the Opposition throughout that period?

Mr. Morrison: I think there is point in what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, we have sought to make British achievements known all over the world,

and that course has been denounced by the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: We seem to have got into a regular party fight at the moment.

Mr. Profumo: May I ask another supplementary, Mr. Speaker? As the right hon. Gentleman is now more interested in our foreign policy than in our financial policy, may I ask whether he is aware that however small these cuts may appear to be, the effect will be a cut of 10 hours a day?

Mr. Morrison: That really is a gratuitous assumption on the part of the hon. Member, and is unjustified by fact.

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. I should be deeply grateful, Sir, if, for the benefit of back bench Members particularly, we could have some guidance on the subject of the practice of asking supplementary questions arising from a Question originally, and quite properly, asked by a back bench Member. Unless I miscounted, there have been four supplementaries, three of which I must say I agree with; from the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). Each one of those, equally properly, has been made the occasion of a demonstration. I should like to ask whether it is now to be the practice that in asking supplementaries arising from a back bench Member's Question, a Member of the Opposition Front Bench has any rights that give him priority over those of a back bench Member on either side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: No one has any right to take any priority whatsoever. I choose who is to ask supplementaries.

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of foreign listeners in each of the respective countries which will be affected by the reduction of broadcasts due to the cut in the Foreign Office grant for the British Broadcasting Corporation's overseas services.

Mr. H. Morrison: It is impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy how many of the listeners to the B.B.C. overseas programmes are accustomed to tune in to the transmissions which will be affected.

Mr. Profumo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that indisputable figures show that over a million French people listen


to our programmes each day? Does he think it is right that, owing to this proposed cut, we should surrender to the United States of America practically entirely the right to broadcast the democratic viewpoint to foreign countries?

Mr. Morrison: I very much doubt whether the research machinery is sufficient in the case of overseas countries to justify the hon. Gentleman's statement.

Mr. Harrison: With the experience of 12 months of these reduced expenses on broadcasting, could my right hon. Friend say whether any important omission which occurred during that 12 months because of the reduced expenditure has been brought to his notice?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is a little in advance. Modification has not yet been made.

Mr. Profumo: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN PURCHASES (TAX REFUNDS)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, in the Estimates for the Foreign Office, the amount required for the reimbursement of Purchase Tax on goods bought in the United Kingdom for official use by representatives of foreign governments is to be raised to £500,000 in 1951–52, as against £220,000 in 1950–51.

Mr. H. Morrison: The bulk of this item is for refund to the United States authorities of Purchase Tax paid by them on British goods bought for official purposes or for re-sale to United States Service personnel. As fuller use is now being made of this arrangement, a larger number of refunds is to be expected this year than last.

Oral Answers to Questions — FALKLAND ISLAND DEPENDENCES

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government do not recognise Argentine

claims over any part of the Falkland Island Dependencies, and having regard to the failure of the Argentine Government to accept His Majesty's Government's offer to submit the case to the International Court of Justice, he will now make a full statement on the occupation of British territory in Antarctica by South American States.

Mr. H. Morrison: As regards the general policy of His Majesty's Government, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary on 6th November, 1950. Since then the Chileans have established another post on British Antarctic territory in the Falkland Island Dependencies. I shall deal with this in replying to the next Question. During the last few days the Argentine Press have reported the establishment of another Argentine base also in the Falkland Island Dependencies. If this is confirmed, His Majesty's Government will protest to the Argentine Government.

Major Beamish: Is the Foreign Secretary contemplating taking any action other than sending a feeble protest every few months?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a Question suggesting what military action he requires, I will consider it.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Argentine Government are at present building in this country the largest floating whaling factory in the world, which will be afloat shortly, and does he realise that this is possibly an opportunity of forcing our whalers out of the Antarctic altogether?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that that is relevant to the point raised by the Question on the Order Paper.

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to recent official announcements in Santiago de Chile of the inauguration of a third Chilean base, in charge of the Chilean Air Force, on Paradise Island; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador at Santiago has delivered a formal protest to the Chilean Government against this act of trespass on British territory in the Falkland Islands Dependencies.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (LAND REFORM)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the United Nations to secure that agrarian reforms will be carried out by the United Nations Commission for Korea in that part of Korea now securely occupied by United Nations Forces.

Mr. H. Morrison: A land reform act was promulgated by the Republic of Korea on 26th June, 1949. Implementation was proceeding when the North Koreans invaded South Korea. When Seoul was reoccupied in September, 1950, by United Nations Forces, the South Korean National Assembly reaffirmed the land reform programme. While continued implementation is a matter for the South Korean Government, the United Nations Commission is at liberty to offer advice on this as on other problems.

Mr. Price: May we have an assurance that the Foreign Secretary will use his influence with the United Nations and, through them, with the United Nations Commission for Korea to see that agrarian reforms are carried out?

Mr. Morrison: My recollection is that we are not on the Commission, but I will certainly keep my hon. Friend's point in mind. He will appreciate that with the existing possibly fluid situation this is not too good a moment at which to follow this matter too actively.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that intentions and programmes of land reform were repeatedly reaffirmed in South Korea throughout the five years after the war but were never carried out, by contrast with North Korea where, for all their faults, the North Koreans did carry out a very thorough programme of land reform? Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind and do all he can to see that such reforms are carried out?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that agrarian reform in Korea is a matter for the Government of the Republic of Korea under international law and for no one else?

Mr. Morrison: I will bear that in mind, too.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (YARN IMPORTS)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a ban was placed on the importation of Indian yarn into Cyprus during 1950; what was the estimated loss of customs revenue; and how much more the Cyprus consumer had to pay for yarn from other sources.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cook): This measure was temporarily adopted in Cyprus to encourage the spinning of locally-grown cotton, but has now been given up. It is not possible to estimate the loss of customs revenue in 1950. I am informed that there was no appreciable extra cost to the consumer in Cyprus.

Mr. Erroll: Is the Minister aware that if he takes the trouble to make himself better informed he will find that there is an extra cost to consumers amounting to £75,000?

Mr. Cook: I will forgive the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his supplementary. His statement is contrary to our information, which is that there was no appreciable difference to the consumer.

Sir H. Williams: As most of my hon. Friends do not identify the hon. Gentleman who is answering the Question, can we be told what constituency he represents, because we have never seen him before?

Mr. Cook: That is not very bright.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (MIGRATION)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what long term plans the Government of Malta has now made in regard to migration from Malta.

Mr. Cook: Under the present Constitution, emigration policy is a matter for Maltese Ministers, and it would not be suitable for my right hon. Friend to make a statement on this matter.

Commander Noble: Would the Minister do everything possible to use the good offices of his Ministry to help Malta in this matter, especially with the migration of Maltese to Australia?

Mr. Cook: We have done that from time to time.

Mr. Gammans: Have any facilities been offered to Maltese to settle in British Honduras?

Mr. Cook: That is quite another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Grenada Riots (Damage)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the extent of the damage caused to public and private property in Grenada during the recent riots; and to what extent the citizens or their representatives helped the authorities to suppress the rioters.

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further statement to make on the recent disturbances in Grenada, and particularly about the circumstances which served as the effective cause of the deterioration of the situation from a relatively normal industrial dispute into a serious disturbance; and whether he proposes to hold any formal inquiry into the immediate circumstances of the disturbances and into the general economic background against which they have to be considered.

Mr. Cook: I will, with permission, make a further statement on the situation in Grenada as promised by my right hon. Friend on 21st March.
The Wages Council Bill was passed on 28th March. Independently, representatives of the Agricultural Employers' Society and the Grenada Mental and Manual Workers' Union have met under neutral chairmanship. No incidents have been reported by the Governor since the statement in the House on 21st March. The resumption of work was delayed at Plaisance and Mount Horn Estates but is now general.
In view of the negotiations proceeding locally I do not wish to add anything to previous statements in the House about the course of past events in Grenada. I regret to say that damage and losses in respect of crops are reported from some 80 estates, the latest total estimates amounting to £195,000. In addition, damage by arson to Government property is estimated at £8,300 and to private property at £9,700. Some citizens with

wireless experience greatly assisted police communications during the strike: others joined the special constabulary.

Dr. Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the economic conditions of the poor labourers of the estates in Grenada and the other West Indian Islands are perfectly disgraceful? Would he see that machinery is quickly available to take the matter in hand as soon as an industrial or agricultural dispute is announced in any of the Colonies?

Mr. Cook: We now have this Wages Council set up and we hope for good results from it.

Mr. Pickthorn: Could the House be told what was the meaning of the word "independently" used, I think, in the early part of the hon. Gentleman's reply? I was not quite clear about it. Secondly, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I did not hear quite clearly the names he mentioned. Plaisance was one; was Mount Horn one? Thirdly, is there any means of estimating how much, if any, of the damage caused is covered by insurance policies?

Mr. Cook: I am not in a position to reply to the latter part of the question, but if the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question to that effect I will see that he is given a reply. I mentioned Plaisance and Mount Horn was definitely mentioned. The word "independently" means that they were independent of the Wages Council.

Sir R. Acland: My hon. Friend mentioned the question of investigations that are now proceeding. If those are investigations simply by the Minister's Labour officer I would ask, without any criticism of that officer, whether he is a sufficient man to investigate alone the very important question of why it was that something that may have started as a labour dispute degenerated into a disturbance and a riot with tremendous loss by damage and loss of life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Second, who is to investigate the question of the general economic and social background of this Island, against which this dispute arose?

Mr. Cook: It does not arise at this point. Mr. Barltrop has the full confidence of the Secretary of State in handling the situation, not only from day to day but from hour to hour. We want


the immediate problem to be settled first, and to consider post mortems later.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In view of the known activities of Communists in other parts of the West Indies, is the hon. Gentleman able to give the House an assurance that a full inquiry into that possibility has been made?

Mr. Cook: We have no evidence at the moment of any Communist activity so far as Grenada is concerned, but we are watching the position very carefully.

Jamaica (Re-armament Programme)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consult with the Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply regarding the possibility of setting up a small arms factory in Jamaica, where there is a surplus of labour, and of giving orders for equipment, such as boots, to factories which already exist in the island, with a view to making better use of the industrial possibilities of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Cook: The question of the participation of Jamaica in the re-armament programme is being examined. There are, however, many obstacles, and it would be unwise to count on any immediate or appreciable expansion of industrial production there to meet needs created by re-armament.

Mr. Gammans: Does that answer mean that, in spite of the fact that, as the Government realise, over 500,000 people in this country have to be transferred from productive industry to rearmament, no attempt whatsoever is to be made to utilise surplus labour in Jamaica and Barbados?

Mr. Cook: All I am seeking to do is to point out that there are difficulties. The matter is being examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Imported Ploughs

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the number of steel ridging ploughs suitable for small mixed farms imported into Nigeria in each of the last four years for which

figures are available; and if he is satisfied that there is now no risk that shortage of such ploughs may be a limiting factor restricting the number of mixed farms which can be established.

Mr. Cook: I have asked the Governor of Nigeria for information on both parts of the Question, and will write to my hon. Friend when I receive it.

Development Corporation

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many officials from his Department have gone out to investigate the Cameroons Development Corporation; whether it is intended to have any independent investigators; and what steps were taken when this investigation was decided on for any of his officials to obtain evidence from any people in this country before going out to West Africa.

Mr. Cook: As the Corporation is a Nigerian statutory body, it would be for the Nigerian Government to initiate any investigation into its affairs. My right hon. Friend has informed the Governor of certain of the matters which my hon. Friend has raised with him about the Corporation and has asked the Governor for his comments on them.

Mr. Cooper: Can my hon. Friend say what pressure the Secretary of State is bringing to bear upon the Governor of Nigeria to make full-scale investigations into the Cameroons Development Corporation, in view of the fact that under the present management such disgraceful inefficiency is being exposed? Already, half the British staff have left the organisation in disgust, and I think that we should investigate the matter as a problem of some urgency.

Mr. Cook: I would prefer to await the Governor's comments.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Armed Forces (Recruitment)

Mr. G. Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken, in view of the re-armament programme in this country, to faciliate the recruitment in the Colonies of volunteers to join the Armed Forces from Jamaica and other West Indian Colonies and from the Gold Coast, Nigeria, and other


Colonies where keenness is being expressed by the colonial peoples to play their part in defence of democracy.

Mr. Cook: Colonials resident in this country can join the Armed Forces in the normal way. No special steps are being taken to recruit volunteers from the colonial territories. In a number of Colonies the inhabitants can join local colonial Forces, and as these Forces develop, their services will be increasingly welcomed.

Mr. Cooper: Can my hon. Friend say if the Secretary of State has had any representations made to him by the Governors of any of the Colonies mentioned in this Question, because when I was visiting some of these Colonies recently the very strongest representations were made to me that volunteers would be forthcoming if opportunity were given?

Mr. Cook: That is another question; but not so far as I am aware.

Groundnut Scheme (African Employees)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposal he has for the disposal of the native labour now redundant from the Groundnut Scheme; and what compensation he has had to pay in this respect.

Mr. Cook: On the first part of the Question I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate of 5th March (HANSARD, Col. 167) which indicated, among other things, that few African employees of the Corporation would become redundant. As regards the second part of the Question, the Corporation have paid to redundant African staff about £2,000 in compensation up to 31st March.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there were 10,000 natives employed on this work? Does he consider that this is the best way to enhance the British reputation among the coloured natives? Will he be sure not to start any more groundnut schemes which finish up in this way?

Mr. Cook: That has nothing to do with it, but for the sake of the record it should be made clear that the total is 8,000, and

that the number involved only 400, or, roughly, 5 per cent.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether those Africans who were at work on the Groundnut Scheme, and who have not been given compensation, are now in full productive employment?

Mr. Cook: Most of them are. Where there is any difficulty, the Secretary of State has instructed that suitable arrangements should be made for them.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Can the Undersecretary confirm or deny the rumour that the signature tune of the Secretary of State for War is the "Nutcracker Suite"?

Mr. Cook: I always thought that that was the theme song of the hon. Gentleman.

Overseas Food Corporation (Stores Disposal)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) how many jeeps, reconditioned Bedford truck engines and other vehicles of other makes were sold by the Overseas Food Corporation at Kongwa; what was the price received; and what was the original cost;
(2) how many mattresses were sold by the Overseas Food Corporation at Kongwa; what was the price received; and what was their original cost;
(3) how many E.P.I.P. tents were disposed of by the Overseas Food Corporation at Kongwa to a Mr. Fowler; how much was paid by Mr. Fowler for these tents; and what was the original cost of them.

Mr. Cook: These Questions relate to details of the management of the scheme and can be more suitably put to the Corporation. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, asked the Corporation to let the hon. Member have the answers direct.

Mr. Alport: Is the hon. Member aware that, with reference to the statement in Question No. 33, the purchaser of the E.P.I.P. tents estimates that he will make 13,233⅓ per cent. profit on the transaction? Has the hon. Member's Department been in touch with the War Department about the serious shortage of tents in the Middle East? Does he not think that


it is time that an inquiry was made into the disposal of these stores, in view of the very serious information which is reaching this country from East Africa at the present time?

Mr. Cook: That is not asking for information: that is giving it; but I would prefer that the hon. Gentleman should await the reply he will get from the Corporation.

Mr. Butcher: In view of the widespread interest in this matter, could the hon. Gentleman give it greater publicity than that of a letter to one hon. Member of the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS (TEACHERS' SALARIES)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what immediate steps are being taken by the Government of Mauritius to implement the scale of salaries as discussed and agreed upon by the Mauritius Secondary Schools Teachers' Union; and what is the official policy on the question of pension.

Mr. Cook: The Government of Mauritius intend to introduce the agreed salary scales for non-Government secondary schools, to which I assume that my hon. Friend is referring, when the system of grants made by Government to these schools has been reviewed and established on a new basis related to the new salary scales. It is hoped that this will be before the current financial year ends on 30th June. No formal proposals have been made by the union on the question of pension, and official policy on this question has not yet been formulated.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that Government grant is being paid to non-Government schools and that that grant is paid without any conditions attached at all to its payment with regard to the salary level and the pension conditions of teachers?

Mr. Cook: I should make it clear that the Government of Mauritius have a list of "Approved" secondary schools. They are independent, but are paid a grant in aid by the Government. At 31st December there were nine such schools. I would refer my hon. Friend to my first reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE (STATUS)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have or are being taken to grant Singapore city status.

Mr. Cook: The Municipal Commissioners of Singapore have addressed a petition to His Majesty for the grant of a Royal Charter. This petition is now being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (ARMOURED VEHICLES)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent applications for armoured vehicles for the police and security Forces in Malaya have yet to be met.

Mr. Cook: All armoured vehicles ordered by the Malayan Government for use by the police and security forces in Malaya have now reached Malaya.

Mr. Gammans: Can we assume, then, that there are no shortages whatever of equipment required by the security forces?

Mr. Cook: We have met all the indents made by the Malayan Government.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If it is true—as, indeed, we hope it is—that there is now no scarcity of these vehicles for the police and security forces, will the hon. Gentleman now turn attention to the need for similar vehicles for the planting and tin communities in Malaya?

Mr. Cook: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Postal Duties

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the new postal duties rating involves a special new branch or another opportunity of specialisation for the sea man branch.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): A new branch of the R.N.V.R. is being formed to which personnel of the General Post Office will be recruited for training in Fleet mail duties This Reserve will form the nucleus of


a new postal branch which will be set up in the Royal Navy in war-time.

Ships and Equipment (Sale)

Miss Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether instructions have now been given that no more vessels of any category or naval equipment shall be offered for sale.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. Each case must be decided on its merits. It may be to our advantage to offer certain ships and equipment for sale, particularly to Commonwealth and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries.

Miss Ward: In view of that statement, may I have an assurance that this whole policy has been reviewed by the hon. Gentleman's Department? Will he also give an assurance that it is a matter for his Department and not a matter for the trade, as was indicated by the Foreign Secretary in answer to my earlier Question?

Mr. Callaghan: It is quite clear that the policy must be kept continuously under review if each case is decided on its merits.

Miss Ward: May I have an assurance that this is a matter for the Admiralty and not a matter for the trade?

Mr. Callaghan: That seems to have nothing to do with the Question the hon. Lady put on the Order Paper.

Torpedo and Patrol Boats

Miss Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many new motor torpedo boats or fast patrol boats have been built and commissioned since the end of the war.

Mr. Callaghan: Twenty-four.

Miss Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Admiralty were unwise to sell these types of boat, in view of the fact that we have such a small number of them?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL DELIVERIES, LONDON

Sir H. Williams: asked the Post master-General whether his attention has been drawn to the late deliveries of mail

in the West End of London, in particular, in the Westminster area; whether he is aware that in some parts of Regent Street, on 19th March, the mail normally delivered about 8.45 a.m. was not delivered until 11.30 a.m.; and if he can furnish an explanation for this.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): I much regret that heavy sick absence, particularly on 19th March, together with a re-organisation of postmen's duties has caused delay in completing the first delivery in the districts in question.

Sir H. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a first delivery at 11.30 in the morning is really too bad, in spite of those circumstances?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I quite agree. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman cannot blame the Post Office because postmen are sick. I agree that it has gone on long enough, and I will look into it myself.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that for many months it has been the practice of business houses in this part of London to collect their mail because the first delivery is too late?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is a standing practice throughout the country. It is nothing unusual for business houses to collect their mail.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the fact that the Post Office have had an extensive reorganisation of walks, which has nothing to do with influenza?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The re-organisation of duties was due entirely to the later collection, which was pressed for from all sides of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONES, AYR

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Postmaster-General the number of outstanding applications for telephones in the Ayr constituency; and what are the prospects of their being met.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Six hundred and sixty-seven, plus 115 which are in process of being completed. I regret that I cannot say when all outstanding applications are likely to be met.

Sir T. Moore: Since the demand is obviously so heavy and supplies are obviously so limited, may I presume that


there is some system of priorities such as for doctors, merchants, landladies, and so on?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is a system of priorities. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the Prestwick Exchange is now being extended to provide for the demand.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the increased demand for telephones in Ayr due to the prosperity of the business community in Ayr under the Labour Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR OFFICE (NAME)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the declared policy of this country is for defence and not for war, he will change the name of the War Office to that of the Army Office and so place it on similar lines to that of the Air Ministry and the Admiralty.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. This change would almost certainly involve legislation and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sees no need for it.

Mr. Freeman: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the use of this term is likely to cause continued misunderstanding abroad, and that a gesture of this description may be of material assistance to him in the difficult task he has ahead? Will he reconsult the Prime Minister on the matter?

Mr. Morrison: I follow my hon. Friend's point of view quite well. This is an old name, and I do not think it will cause misunderstanding abroad. If it does we can no doubt get the Overseas Service of the B.B.C. to put it right.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that continuing to refer to the Ministry of Food by that name causes a lot of misunderstanding?

Mr. Morrison: The copyright of that joke belongs to the hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss) who used it before.

Mr. Yates: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has recently described the Foreign Office as "a Department of peace" is it not a little inconsistent that

the name of another Government Department should run contrary to that and be known as a Department of war? Is not this the psychological moment at which to make an alteration?

Mr. Morrison: With great respect, I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend would be wholly happy even if we called it the "Army Office."

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Reservists

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Defence the guiding and underlying principles leading to the recall of Class Z and Class G reservists over 40 years of age who are in possession of no specialist qualifications or experience resulting from former service in His Majesty's Forces.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): These reservists are being recalled for specific tasks in balanced units, and although they may not all possess specialist qualifications it is nonetheless essential for them to be recalled if the unit is to obtain the maximum benefit from its training programme.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that in those circumstances it is necessary to call up men of 43 and 44 years of age who have had no previous specialist qualifications and who were demobilised before 1946, having served only as clerks or drivers? Are not younger men available for those jobs?

Mr. Shinwell: In response to the hon. Gentleman's request I have tried to state the general principle. If he has any specific cases in mind, I suggest that he might refer them to the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary of State for Air.

Sir R. Acland: Is there not in effective operation a system of calling up a cross-section of all reservists, which is considerably different from the expressed practice in the "Quiz," which talks about a call up on the general principle of "Last out, first in"?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend wants me to say.

Sir R. Acland: In view of the divergence, will my right hon. Friend consider this matter again?

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman referred to specific cases. Is he aware


that hundreds of men of 44 years of age have written to me and to other hon. Members complaining that they cannot fit into any of the categories to which the right hon. Gentleman refers?

Mr. Shinwell: It may be that some men who have been recalled feel that they are not easily dovetailed into special categories, but the War Office and the Air Ministry may hold a different view.

Mr. Harrison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although a lot of these men have no specialist qualifications, they must have special experience before they are called up?

Mr. Shinwell: I should imagine that most men who served during the last war have some special experience.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Defence whether reservists will be unconditionally discharged from all further reserve liability with His Majesty's Forces on attaining the age of 45 years.

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member is referring to Class Z and Class G reservists the answer is "No," but men over 45 years of age have not been recalled.

Mr. Nabarro: Does that reply mean that a Z reservist retains the liability for recall until he reaches the age group of Methuselah or until he goes to his Maker, whichever is the earlier?

Mr. Shinwell: There is the liability to recall while the emergency lasts.

Mr. Nabarro: At any age?

Mr. Shinwell: I should imagine that the War Office, the Admiralty or the Air Ministry would not call up a man if they regarded him as too old.

Mr. Nabarro: When does the liability end?

Egypt (British Equipment)

Captain Soames: asked the Minister of Defence what military equipment has

been sent by this country to Egypt during the past 12 months; and what commitments are outstanding at the present time for the further despatch of such equipment.

Mr. Shinwell: I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), and other hon. Members on 22nd and 29th November, 1950. Since then the only equipment supplied to Egypt has been normal maintenance requirements and spare parts. The supply to Egypt of important items of equipment of modern types has been suspended.

Captain Soames: Does that include the destroyer "Cottesmore," whose name, I believe, has been changed to the "Ibrahim el Awal"?

Mr. Shinwell: I think that question might be put on the Order Paper.

Captain Ryder: Could we have an answer to this question of the "Cottesmore," as we are very short of escort vessels at the present time?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes a reply on some detailed matter, perhaps he will put a Question down. This Question is framed in very general terms and I have given a general answer.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: In the right hon. Gentleman's answer to me there was no mention of a ship such as H.M.S. "Cottesmore."

Mr. Shinwell: Precisely. There is no mention of a ship in the Question.

Captain Soames: Did the right hon. Gentleman not say that no major item of military equipment would in future be shipped to Egypt; and is a destroyer not a major item of military equipment?

Mr. Shinwell: I will repeat what I said in the latter part of my reply. The supply to Egypt of important items of equipment of modern types has been suspended. That is what I said, and by that I stand.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENT No. 252 (SCHEDULES)

Sir John Mellor: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask you a Question of which I have given you Private Notice: Whether, in view of the fact that copies of disputed Schedules 91 to 95, inclusive, of The Iron and Steel Prices Order, Statutory Instrument, 1951, No. 252, laid before the House on 20th February, were absent, incomplete or incorrect, you will rule that the said Order has been improperly laid and shall be withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Baronet for giving me notice of this Question, and, in reply, I must inform him that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply did, as he had promised to do, seek the advice of the authorities of the House, and that in the view of my advisers Statutory Instrument No. 252 of the Iron and Steel Prices Order, 1951, was not properly laid in the circumstances which have been described. I am informed that the Ministry, on 2nd April, sent the necessary documents to complete those which had been laid in dummy. The Statutory Instrument is now properly laid, and the 40-day period in respect of it will be considered to have begun yesterday.

Sir J. Mellor: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling. May I ask for your clarification on one point? Surely, Mr. Speaker, this Schedule is part of the Order and, therefore, there can be only one date for laying. As I understand it, there has not been any official notification to the House of the re-lay which is normally made by notification through the Votes and Proceedings Office. I submit that at present the Order is not laid at all, and I would be very grateful for your guidance upon that point.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Baronet is mistaken. The Order was laid in part. It was not complete at the time but, still, it was laid. It was, so to speak, the notification of the birth of the baby, but we found that it was not complete in all its limbs. Now it has been made complete, and so it comes before the House as a whole child, and in view

of my statement just now no other notification is necessary.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely, if it is possible for orders or parts of orders or schedules to be laid in dummy that would undermine the whole Parliamentary control of delegated legislation, because it would be open to the Minister to present the skeleton and to add the flesh afterwards. I submit, Sir, that that would raise an intolerable position from the point of view of Parliamentary control.

Mr. Speaker: I am quite prepared to consider that point, but at the moment I am advised that it is not necessary at all. I must take the advice that I receive.

Mr. Erroll: Further to that point, Mr. Speaker, as I had a Prayer against this incomplete Order, which was adjourned by the wish of the House, and which is due to come up again tomorrow night, may I seek your Ruling as to whether I am now to start the Prayer all over again, as the Order is now complete for the first time, or must it be regarded as a continuation of the adjourned Prayer to an incomplete Order?

Mr. Speaker: That is rather a nasty one at short notice. I would like to think that over because I would not like to give a false Ruling about it. It is a difficult question to answer at short notice, but I will consider it.

Mr. S. Silverman: While you are thinking it over, Mr. Speaker, would it perhaps be worth while to take into consideration the possibility that if there were no Order there could be no Prayer?

Mr. Speaker: I take all these things into consideration.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: There is one point on which I think we ought to have an assurance, and that is that no action has been taken between the time when the original Order was mislaid and the time when the new Order has at last been laid.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Ministry. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance about that.

POST OFFICE SERVICES (INCREASED CHARGES)

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speakers I wish to acquaint the House with certain increases which I propose to make in charges for Post Office services.
I have had under examination the developing position of the finances of all Post Office services, and as a result I have reached the conclusion—very reluctantly—that the time has come when the Post Office finances, faced with a steep rise in costs in practically all directions, must be fortified by an increase in several of our tariffs. The House may be surprised at this, in view of the considerable attention frequently given to the surplus exhibited by our commercial accounts, but there is, I fear, no escape from the conclusion that without this support the surplus for 1951–52 would fall to a very small figure.

The increases I now propose to make in Post Office tariffs are as follow:

INLAND PRINTED PAPERS.—I propose to increase the initial rate for an inland printed paper packet from 1d. for the first 2 oz. to 1½d. for the first 4 oz. These changes will be made as from the 1st June, 1951, and the necessary Treasury Warrant will be laid before the House shortly.

OVERSEAS PARCELS.—I propose, as soon as possible after the 1st June, 1951, to increase the postage rates for parcels to overseas destinations to make the service broadly self supporting. The rates for parcels to different countries vary widely but the average increase will be about 50 per cent.

INLAND MONEY ORDERS AND CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICES.—I propose to introduce the following changes in these services on the 1st July, 1951. The poundage on inland money orders and inland telegraph money orders will be increased by 2d. at each step, with a minimum charge of 8d. for amounts

OVERSEAS PARCELS


The postage rates vary widely for different countries of destination. The following are some examples of present and proposed rates:



Present









2 lb.
3 lb.
7 lb.
11 lb.
22 lb.









s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


France
…
…
…
…
…
…
2
0
—
3
0
4
0
6
6


U.S.A.
…
…
…
…
…
…
—
2
0
3
9
5
9
9
9


Brazil
…
…
…
…
…
…
3
3
—
5
3
6
3
9
9


India
…
…
…
…
…
…
—
2
0
3
9
5
3
8
3

up to £10. The present inland cash-on-delivery fees will be increased by 4d. at each step, with a minimum fee of 10d. for trade charges up to £1. These changes will be made by statutory regulations under existing Acts.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.—The present charge of 2d. for a local call from a public kiosk or other coin-box telephone will be increased to 3d. The increase will be made by statutory regulations under the Telegraph Acts and will come into operation as soon as the necessary adaptations of the coinboxes can be made, probably about the 1st October, 1951.

TELEGRAPH SERVICE.—I propose to introduce the following changes in this service on 1st July, 1951. The minimum charge for an ordinary inland telegram will be increased from 1s. for nine words (with 1d. for each additional word) to 1s. 6d. for 12 words (with 1½d. for each additional word). For greetings telegrams the minimum of 2s. for 12 words will remain unchanged, but each additional word will be charged 1½d. These new charges exceed the limits laid down in the Telegraph Act, 1943, and legislation will be required.

Each of the services in which I am proposing to increase the charges are at present running at a loss.

The effect of the changes which I have enumerated will be to produce additional cash revenue in 1951–52 of £5,320,000 for posts and remittance services; £700,000 for telephones; £300,000 for telegraphs; total, £6,320,000. The corresponding figures for a full year are £6,190,000, £1,550,000 and £450,000; total, £8,190,000.

For the convenience of the House I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT some further details showing the effect of the various changes.

Following are the further details:

Proposed (not earlier than 1st June, 1951)









s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


France
…
…
…
…
…
…
3
6
—
4
6
6
3
9
6


U.S.A
…
…
…
…
…
…
—
3
3
6
0
9
9
17
0


Brazil
…
…
…
…
…
…
6
0
—
8
3
12
0
18
3


India
…
…
…
…
…
…
—
3
9
6
6
9
9
15
0

INLAND MONEYORDERS*









Poundage


Amount or order
Present
Proposed









s.
d.
s.
d.


Up to £3
…
…
…
…
…
…
0
4
0
8


Over £3 and up to £10
…
…
…
…
…
…
0
6


Each additional £10 up to £50
…
…
…
…
…
…
0
2
0
2

INLAND TELEGRAPH MONEYORDERS*


Poundage as above plus:—






s.
d.
s.
d.


Official telegram of advice
…
…
…
…
…
…
1
4
1
10


Supplementary fee
…
…
…
…
…
…
0
2
0
3

INLAND CASH-ON-DELIVERYSERVICE*


Tradecharge






C.O.D. fee









s.
d.
s.
d.


Up to 10s.
…
…
…
…
…
…
0
4
0
10


Over10s. up to £1
…
…
…
…
…
…
0
6


Over £1 up to £2
…
…
…
…
…
…
0
8
1
10


Over £2 up to £5
…
…
…
…
…
…
0
10
1
12


Each additional £5 up to £40
…
…
…
…
…
…
0
2
0
2


* Date of change 1st July, 1951.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that these are very widespread increases which will affect every section of the community. We shall obviously require time to study them; we shall want to examine and debate them. Can I ask him now whether I am right in thinking that the Post Office is now making a contribution to the Treasury? If so, can we be told what the amount of that is?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. These proposals are considered in the light of Post Office finances. The right hon. Gentleman will not be unaware that there is such a thing as the Bridgeman doctrine which does have an influence on my mind; but these proposals are related solely to the Post Office.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to apply his mind to the question I have put? I remember that the Post Office contribution to the Treasury was stopped during the war, and I want to know whether there is now such a contribution being made. The right hon. Gentleman will realise how germane this is to any consideration of these proposals, and that if there is such a contribution, it should cease before the public are asked to pay these new charges.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The Post Office makes no contribution as such to the Treasury. What happens is that the cash

account surpluses of the Post Office go to the Treasury. [Laughter.] I thought I had made it very clear. All the profits that the Post Office has made over very many years have been taken by the Treasury, and all one has to do is to look at the accounts to see how much has been taken by the Treasury; but the size of any contribution has never yet been determined by anyone.

Mr. Eden: Since we are all trying to be as simple as we can, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the amount which the Post Office transferred last year to the Treasury?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The Post Office did not transfer any money at all. The confusion arises out of the profits on the commercial account and the cash transactions. The right hon. Gentleman's colleague has been in the Post Office and knows that there is a very clear distinction. The result is that the contribution to the Treasury over the last few years has been nil, and apparently it will be nil again this year.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the increased postal rates for overseas parcels be without prejudice to any of the concessions granted to troops serving overseas?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is a special arrangement and it will still be borne, I take it, by the Defence Departments.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not a fact that over the last five years there has been a very substantial deficit on the cash transactions and that the Treasury has had to supply the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors with nearly £40 million out of taxation?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Member has made the point—the difference between the commercial account and the cash account. The postal and telephone services have rendered services of £16 million a year to other Government Departments, from which the Post Office gets no cash payments although it takes credit for them in its commercial accounts. The cash transferred to the Treasury over the last four years has been nil, but there has been a substantial commercial profit.

Mr. Driberg: When my right hon. Friend says that without these increases the surplus would fall to a very small sum, can he say why the surplus should not fall to such a very small sum if the service to the public is thereby kept cheap?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think that the reason is this. The Post Office must put itself in the position of meeting all the costs of the services it gives to the community. The Post Office in making these proposals, which hardly in any instance exceed more than 50 per cent., is very much behind the increases in the prices and costs imposed upon it.

Mr. Eden: Would I be right in saying that this extra charge on the public is in very large measure due to the additional demands which the Government Departments make on the services of the Post Office and the consequent effect on their revenues?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, that would be completely contrary to the facts. The fact is that the costs of the materials of the Post Office have greatly increased—public conveyance has gone up by 166 per cent., and copper, and other basic materials, paper and wages, have all increased. All these have gone up to a far greater extent than these proposed increases.

Mr. Monslow: Are these suggested increases in any way due to the improved economic condition now enjoyed by the Post Office workers?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There has been a 180 per cent. increase as compared with pre-war in the wage charges for the services rendered by the Post Office.

Mr. Assheton: Is it not high time that the Government gave up the present practice adopted in the war of not charging the Government Departments for their bills, and therefore leading to great extravagance in telephoning and postage by the Government Departments?

Mr. Ness Edwards: While I have sympathy with the suggestion, I would point out that from a purely Post Office point of view it would require something like 2,000 people to supervise the collection and totalling up of these amounts, which means that in the long run the Post Office would be actually worse off.

Mr. Collick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very strong objections felt on this side to his proposals, and will he give the House the assurance that none of these proposals will be brought into effect until it has had an opportunity of discussing the whole matter?

Mr. Ness Edwards: My hon. Friend must face the alternative, which is that the ordinary letter writer, the old age pensioner, will have to subsidise services of this nature, which I am not prepared to agree to.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that these proposals really amount to taxation, will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the plea that has been made to him and give an undertaking, apart from the telegraph charges, that these charges will not come into effect until the House has had an opportunity of expressing its view?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The necessary Statutory Instruments will be laid and can be discussed. I want to disabuse the hon. Member's mind of the idea that this has anything to do with taxation. This is something related to the Post Office finances and Post Office finances alone.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Do I understand that the increase in local telephone calls from 2d. to 3d. applies only to kiosks and not to private subscribers, and if so, why?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It applies only to public call boxes. It does not apply to


the other type of calls because, as Members on both sides know, in 1949 there was a Bill before the House which had certain disagreeable features and was withdrawn. My mind is not closed to the necessity of looking at that problem again, because it is not right that only persons in public call boxes should meet the whole of the charges that are to be made.

Professor Savory: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to increased costs and expenses. Are these not largely due to the devaluation of the pound, and is not that proved by the fact that those countries which have not debased their coinage have not had to increase their tariffs?

Mr. Ness Edwards: All I am concerned about is to meet the bills which private industry presents to me for the contracts which have been awarded, and unless I get these increases in revenue, I shall be unable to meet the demands of private industry which has contracts.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend say if all the services which he has mentioned were losing money, and if, therefore, we are to assume that the rest of the postal services were actually subsidising the services he has mentioned today?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The services on which I have proposed increases have been carried by other sections of the postal service. They have been working at a loss and the loss is now so substantial that it must be tackled.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Have attempts to improve or increase the services provided by the Post Office been commensurate with these increased charges, because in many cases services are still on a war-time basis, especially as regards the collection and delivery of letters?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is one of the consequences of the improvements I have made. There have been increased charges which must be paid for.

Miss Burton: Has not my right hon. Friend inadvertently left the House under a misapprehension so far as private telephone calls are concerned? Were not the charges for these increased by 50 per cent.

not long ago, and in addition to that there are surcharges, Would it be right for further additional charges to be put on the private subscriber?

Mr. Ness Edwards: My hon. Friend is right in some respects and wrong in others. The rental increase was 15 per cent. not 50 per cent. It would be wrong now, apart from the rental position, which I am reserving, to increase their local charges.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Is it not a fact that if the Post Office were to receive payment from other Government Departments for services rendered there would still be, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, a small surplus, and that these extra charges would, for the time being at all events, be unnecessary?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot with any assurance or confidence give the House the assurance that if these charges were not imposed there would be a commercial account surplus at the end of the year. There is grave doubt about it, and it would be quite wrong of me to mislead the House about it.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Does my right hon. Friend propose to undertake a full review of the charges made by the Post Office for all its services? Can he say now what Post Office services will be carried on at a loss after the proposed increases in charges? In other words, are there not still sections of the service which do not charge a price which covers the cost?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The telegraph service has, as the House knows, been carried on at a very substantial loss for many years. The loss last year was £4 million, and this year will probably be £5 million. I agree that it is a service that we have to keep in the interests of our community, especially the poorer and scattered parts of it. I am quite prepared to carry on the policy of maintaining that service and of fixing a tariff that will not kill it altogether.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: I gathered that the right hon. Gentleman cannot guarantee that there will be a surplus in the commercial account for 1951–52. But did he not say, in his original statement that


there would be a surplus but that it would be a small one? Is the right hon. Gentleman now departing from what he said in his original statement?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No. What I said in my statement was that we anticipated that there will, towards the end of the year, be a very small surplus, but events are moving so swiftly against us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the prices that private industry is charging are rising—that it is not with great confidence that I make that estimate that it will be a surplus at all. It may fall on either side of the line, and the House should be aware of that.

Mr. Albu: Is it not a fact that a few months ago the price of a telephone call in telephone kiosks in the United States, where the telephone service is run by private enterprise, went up to 8d.?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The fact is that the President of the United States has already asked Congress for increases far in advance of those for which I am asking.

Sir Ian Fraser: In order to protect the Post Office from being flooded out, and to help Members of Parliament, will the Postmaster-General raise the fee for a letter stamp, when constituents write to their Members, to 2s. 6d.?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That may be very good Tory doctrine, but it is not accepted on this side of the House.

Mr. Mulley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in regard to the last supplementary question, that we on this side of the House do not object to letters from our constituents? In regard to the need to increase the revenue of the telegraph service, will my right hon. Friend also consider raising the special rates which are given in respect of the Press telegram service, which is now run at a considerable loss?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I must have particular regard to that aspect. I do not want to do anything that will cause limitation in the dissemination of news and

information. I am trying to be quite fair about this: I do not want any charge that we are crippling the Press in its legitimate activities to be levelled at this side of the House. The amount we should save by adopting such a proposal would be trifling, and I have decided that the balance of argument is against doing anything about it.

Mr. Summers: How are the commercial results of the right hon. Gentleman's Department expected to work out in the current year, after taking the benefit of the increases which he has announced, compared with the commercial results of last year?

Mr. Ness Edwards: As I have already said, we anticipate a slight surplus at the end of this year if further price changes do not alter the position. As I have indicated, there are 12 arbitration cases outstanding in respect of claims for increased wages. This forecast account does not include an increase in wages to the engineers amounting to £1,250,000 per year, which has already been granted. It is these imponderable and uncertain factors that make me very reluctant to be certain and dogmatic about our future accounts.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We have now devoted half an hour to this matter. We have other business to do, and I hope that we might get on.

Mr. Summers: As the right hon. Gentleman has completely failed to give me an answer, and as my question is one in which the public is vitally interested, may I again ask him how it is expected that the results of his Department will work out, after these changes, compared with last year?

Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman will only read the published forecast account, which is available in the Vote Office, he will find all the information he requires.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION

ELDERLY PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. J. R. Bevins: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 13th April, I shall call attention to the importance of the problem of retaining middle-aged and elderly people in employment, and move a resolution.

LANDED ESTATES (TAX REMISSION)

Mr. J. J. Robertson: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 13th April, I shall call attention to the present prevailing remission of tax on landed estates, and move a resolution.

TOURIST INDUSTRY

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 13th April, I shall call attention to the tourist industry, and move a resolution.

IRON AND STEEL PRICES

Order for resuming Tomorrow Adjourned Debate on Question [19th March] read and discharged.

Orders of the Day — LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 1.—(CONTINUATION OF EXPIRING LONG TENANCY WHERE TENANT IN OCCUPATION.)

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "tenancy," to insert "of residential property."
A long time has elapsed since we last had an opportunity of considering this Bill, which I fear is dull and uninteresting to most hon. Members, although it is of great importance to many people throughout the country. The importance depends to some extent upon what happens today and what may happen to the Bill in the future. The Amendment is a simple one and easily capable of comprehension.
The House will observe that the Bill proposes to do two separate and distinct things. The long Title makes that clear. The first thing it proposes to do is to make temporary provision for the protection of occupiers of residential property against the coming to an end of long leases. The second thing is the renewal of tenancies of shops. Part I of the Bill is headed "Dwellings," and Part II "Shops," and yet, on looking through Part I, one finds no reference to the words "residential property." Nor, apart from that heading, is there any reference to the word "dwellings" in Part I. I drew attention to this fact during the Committee stage, when we suggested that the word "dwelling-house" should be inserted in the operative part of Clause 1. We gave to that expression the same definition as is contained in the Rent Acts.
In his reply, the Attorney-General expressed the view that as a true ground lease was a lease of land without buildings on it at that moment, and a dwelling-house subsequently erected on that land would be excluded from the definition, there would be no letting of a separate dwelling-house. I think that that opinion expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I am sorry not to see here today, is inaccurate. I think that


he would find it so if he were to refer to one of the decided cases. He said that he would look at the point. I have not had any communication from him with regard to the matter, and if he has looked at it he has not sought to make any alteration to the Bill.
The new approach which we are seeking to make by the insertion of the words "residential property" should commend itself to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. One reason is that it makes the text of the Bill accord with the long Title, which at present it does not. There is no reference in the body of the Bill to the words "residential property," which are contained in the long Title. What is residential property is in each case a question of fact. I do not think it would be necessary, if these words were inserted, to provide any definition of residential property. No one would regard Selfridge's, Woolworth's or the Albert Hall—these instances were given on the Committee stage—as residential properties, but yet, under the Bill as it stands, in the case of a shop let on a lease for more than 21 years, as many shops are, all that the tenant or a member of his family would have to do in order to bring that shop within Part I of the Bill, would be to go and live there immediately before the lease of the shop expired.
I cannot believe that it is the intention that this very bad Bill should create such a degree of uncertainty as to its operation as to lead, in all probability, to litigation upon that point. No one can say that the point is not liable to arise if it is left open to all tenants of property held on leases of over 21 years to make use of Part I of the Bill in that way. No landlord of business premises would find it possible to make any arrangements certain in character for the future. No would-be tenant would be able to rely upon securing possession, even though the tenant in occupation had said that he was going. Any arrangements that the would-be tenant had made could be defeated if the occupying tenant changed his mind and decided to live on the premises for a week or so before the expiry of the lease.
It is a serious defect in the Bill that the words "residential property," although they appear in the long Title, do not appear anywhere in the text. As I understand the Bill from the long Title,

the intention is that Part I should apply only to residential property, but that is not said. We say that, to make Part I accord with the long Title, the House should certainly incorporate these words. In that connection I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the passage in the Gracious Speech referring to the Bill, which said:
My Ministers have under consideration the reform of the law relating to leaseholds and meanwhile measures will be introduced to provide for the continuation for a short period of ground leases relating to residential premises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 8.]
The Amendment seeks to carry out the intention, revealed in not only the long Title of the Bill but also in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am very sympathetic to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but does not the title "Dwellings" at the head of Part I comprehend the very objective he seeks to attain?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not consider that the heading forms any part of the Statute for the purposes of interpretation? What we have to look at is the wording of the text. I appreciate that he is not unsympathetic. If he looks at the text, he will see that, although we have the heading "Dwellings," there is no reference to "dwellings" anywhere in Part I and also no reference to residential property. As objection was taken to our attempting to insert the word "dwelling," we are now seeking to do nothing else than to put in the Bill what should obviously be there to carry out the intention of the Gracious Speech and the long Title.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is not the point that "dwellings" is a classification? I agree that it is not a very tidy one, but nevertheless it stands there as a category. The point is whether incorporating between the words "tenancy" and "was" the phrase "of residential property" will make confusion worse confounded. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to do what he now seeks to do, it seems that it might be wise to eliminate the title "Dwellings" altogether and then incorporate the phrase "of residential property." It would be rather confusing if both were to stand together.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not share that view for two reasons. One is that "dwelling" is another way of expressing "residential property." The second reason is that the word "Dwellings" at the head of Part I is of as much assistance in interpreting the Statute as the marginal note, but it does not form part of the Statute.
I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will agree that no one could say, merely because of the one word at the top of Part I, that the application of Clause I could be limited to dwellings, if a case could be brought within the actual wording of the Clause. While I see no difficulty arising if Part I is headed "Dwellings" and the first line of the Clause refers to "residential property," we feel that if we insert the words "residential property" or "dwellings"—we do not mind which it is in the actual text of the Bill—it will lead to clarity, and the avoidance of a great deal of confusion and a great many attempts by various individuals to take advantage of the Measure when it is not intended to apply to them.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Unlike my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), I am not a bit sympathetic to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). Is it not quite obvious to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, even if these words were inserted, the position would still be left exactly the same in the instance which he gave of the person going to live in a shop?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman's views are not nearly so convincing as those of his hon. and learned Friend. He may be less sympathetic to my argument, but his views are also less well founded. It is obvious that, if we insert "residential property" in the text, in order to bring a person within the Clause we have to find that he is living in residential property. No solicitor could be heard to contend that the Albert Hall would become residential property merely because the hon. Gentleman once spent a night there.
4.15 p.m.
By inserting the words "residential property" we should clarify and, at the same time define the operation of Part I. Although the hon. Member says that he

is unsympathetic to the argument I am advancing, I would point out to him that his lack of sympathy relates, I believe, to the whole of the Measure, because all we are seeking to do is to make the Measure accord with the intention expressed in the long Title and in the Gracious Speech and to make it as clear as it can be made and as workable as such a very bad Measure can be made.

Mr. Black: I beg to second the Amendment.
I always feel a certain amount of diffidence, not being a member of the legal profession, in taking part in the discussion of this very difficult and complicated Measure, but I am fortified by the view that, when the Bill becomes an Act, we hope it will be understood by the members of the public who will be concerned in its operation and not merely by those who can bring a trained legal mind to bear upon its phraseology.
Therefore, I plead with the House to accept the Amendment with the object of making the Bill a little more intelligible to the ordinary member of the public. I am fortified in my appeal by two statements made by the Attorney-General in Second Reading debate. He said:
… we are left only with the word 'dwelling'; and there is really no definition of 'dwelling.' Anything is a dwelling in which a person happens to dwell at the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 937.]
Therefore, even if it were possible to import the word "dwellings," it would be an unsatisfactory way of seeking to define what classes of property should properly be brought within the purview of the Clause. In the same speech the Attorney-General said:
… I am in favour of anything which avoids unnecessary litigation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 936.]
Acceptance of the Amendment would avoid a considerable amount of misunderstanding and litigation later on.
If we accept the Attorney-General's statement that "dwelling" means "anything…in which a person happens to dwell at the time," it is obvious that we are dealing with something wider in scope than a residential property, and it would be fair to say that if one had a very large office building in London containing two or three rooms reserved for the occupation of a caretaker or a housekeeper, although


99 per cent. of the building was devoted to office purposes, those rooms could be regarded as a dwelling. Therefore if that is the case, the lessee of such a property under a ground lease would only have to enter into possession of those two or three rooms for a short period over the expiration of the lease itself to bring the property within the scope of Part I of this Bill. I cannot for one moment think that it was really in the minds of those who brought the Bill before the House that that type of case should be caught by Part I of the Bill.
It would also be fair to say that in the case of a man having a chain of multiple shops where in each shop the occupation was predominantly a business occupation, but each shop had two or three rooms occupied by a manager or an assistant, the proprietor of the business, by living in the two or three rooms for a limited period over the expiration of the lease, would be able to bring himself within the framework of Part I of the Bill.
If the Amendment were accepted we would, by the insertion of the words "residential property," limit the operation of Part I to the class of property which it was intended to bring within the scope of Part I, and would get away from the obvious ambiguity which exists regarding the interpretation of the word "dwelling," even if it were possible to bring the word "dwelling" from the head of this part of the Bill into the interpretation of what follows.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): Since the Committee stage of this Bill we have carefully reconsidered the wording of this Clause, and as a result we feel that it is perfectly satisfactory as it stands. May I endeavour to give my reasons why? I think that some hon. Members are under a slight misapprehension about the object of Part I. It is not intended to apply exclusively to residential premises: it is intended to include mixed residential and shop premises, and that is made perfectly clear by the language used.
Clause 1 requires, first, that there should be a tenancy for the requisite period of years and, secondly, that immediately before the date of expiry of that tenancy
the tenant or a member of his family is living in the property or a part thereof in right of the tenancy.

Upon the assumption that those conditions are fulfilled, Part I has application, and it will be immediately apparent, if one considers those words, that it has application as a result to premises which may be partly shop premises and partly residential, so long as one can say of them that, first, they are held upon a lease which is of the requisite length, and secondly, that the tenant or a member of his family in right of the tenancy is living either in the premises as a whole or in part of them.
If we introduced the words, "of residential property" as proposed by the Amendment, the effect would be substantially to limit the application of the Clause. It would mean that the only premises which were affected by Part I would be those premises which could be described as residential premises and it would exclude all mixed premises. That is not the intention, and the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) is not quite accurate in saying that my right hon. and learned Friend did not intimate that it was the intention of those who proposed this Bill that mixed premises should be included. If the hon. and learned Member will be so good as to look again at a letter which my right hon. and learned Friend wrote on 21st March of this year, after the Committee stage proceedings, he will see that that was made clear.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain, then, why the first part of the long Title, which relates solely to Part I, refers only to residential property?

The Solicitor-General: Because if the premises are lived in they also include residential premises and therefore would be within the long Title. That is why we feel we should be limiting the first Clause to an extent which is not intended if we accepted the words in the Amendment.
The basis of the argument advanced in support of the Amendment is as follows. It is said that if we do not import some words like "residential premises" it may lead to ridiculous results. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) instanced the case of a large block of offices in one or two rooms of which a caretaker was living. Of course, if these were the circumstances, that would not be sufficient to make


Part I of the Bill apply because, as the hon. Member is well aware, the person who has to be living in the premises has to be the tenant or a member of the tenant's family. I think the hon. Member intimated that he was aware of that, because he went on to assume that in the case he was posing, the owner of the block of offices had at the last moment evicted and supplanted the caretaker.
One has to look at the generality of cases. I suppose one could theoretically or conceivably have a case of a large block of offices the lessee of which was minded at the last moment before the expiry of the lease to expel the caretaker living in part of them and to supplant him by his own personality; but I am sure the hon. Member will agree that is an unlikely case.

Mr. Black: No.

The Solicitor-General: Equally is it unlikely that one would get a person moving his bed on Christmas Eve into the Albert Hall, which was another example given at an earlier stage. Such things do happen in this world in which almost everything is possible, but obviously that is an extraordinary case and that rarified concatenation of circumstances is not the sort of thing about which one has to legislate.
We have to deal with the generality of cases in which either the tenant or a member of his family is living, in the true sense of the word, in the whole or part of the premises. The touchstone is the word "living." It is always a question of fact whether premises are residential. It is equally a question of fact whether one can say in any given circumstances that a person is living in premises.
I should have thought it unlikely as a fact that any court would conclude that, supposing a person moved his bed into the Albert Hall on Christmas Eve—for some reason which might be difficult to conjecture, at any rate without further explanation—he was living in the Albert Hall. Equally I should have thought it unlikely on the whole that if the lessee in a large block of offices supplanted the caretaker and moved in for two days at the end of the term, it would be said that he was living there.
4.30 p.m.
Therefore, the qualification is to be found in the word "living." We have to find the premises and then we have to be able to say as a matter of fact that the tenant or a member of his family is living in those premises. The word is "living," and, after all, to come within the four corners of that word there has to be a given state of fact which does correspond to what the ordinary person regards as the process of living in a particular building. I hope, therefore, that with that explanation and the assurance that we have carefully considered again the arguments put forward and we feel that the present language in the Bill is satisfactory, the House will agree that the Amendment ought not to be accepted.

Captain Crookshank: This is not a subject in which I am very well versed, but I understand that the word "reside" is normally the word used in statutes of this kind. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument really turns on what is or is not meant by the word "living." He said that if one moved a bed into the Albert Hall, one could not make the Albert Hall into a residence. I understand why that may be in an extreme case.
I wonder what happens in a case corresponding to that in which certain Ministers have the use of certain rooms in their Department and which they occasionally use when kept up late in the House or when they cannot get home at night. It may very well be that similar circumstances occur in other walks of life. A solicitor may have a bed in his office for occasional use, or a doctor in Harley Street who did not live in that street, might find that from time to time he occasionally slept a couple of nights in his consulting rooms. Would that constitute living in premises under the Bill? It would not constitute residing under the law as it is now. By changing the word to "residing" instead of "living," might it not be said that this would let out the kind of case I have in mind?

The Solicitor-General: As I am sure the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) will agree at once, it is very difficult to draw the line. If one takes the case of the Harley Street doctor living on the premises for an occasional night, I do not think an ordinary person considering the ordinary


meaning of the word "living" would say that he was living there. On the other hand, supposing one had a shop with premises at the back where a person habitually sleeps, then he lives there.
I should have thought that, generally speaking, it would not be difficult to say on which side of the line the case fell, and in the sort of example the right hon. and gallant Member gives the line would fall roughly as I sought to put it. With regard to the use of the word "reside," I think he is not quite accurate in thinking that is the usual word used in legislation of this kind. If one looks, for example, at the Rent Restriction Acts—a very extensive code with very many Acts going to make it up and where one would be able to find some answer as to what is the usual word used—I think I am right in saying that the word "reside" is used in only one place; that is in Section 12 (1, g) of the 1920 Act, where it would be awkward for a particular reason, if one looks at the definition, to use the word "living" because it would have an unfortunate connotation. Broadly speaking, I think it cannot be said that the word "reside" is the usual word used. Therefore I think the answer to the question the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has put to me is "No."
Looking away from legislation, I think that if one asked, in the ordinary English acceptation of the term, "Does the word 'living' convey a clear conception or is a clearer conception conveyed by the word 'reside'?" I should have thought the ordinary meaning to be attributed to it is also the legal meaning. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that the expression "to live in premises" is cleary understood on the whole and conveys a perfectly clear connotation to the mind of the ordinary person.
If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not agree, may I make a quotation from the "Manchester Guardian" which contains a very outspoken protest against what is described as ugly English, and the word "resided" is selected as an example of ugly English and the word "live" is preferred to the word "reside"? If one judges the matter by standards of taste, perhaps the "Manchester Guardian" view is one which the House would be disposed to

take into account as being authoritative in the matter. I think the House would agree that no really useful purpose would be served by making the change.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There are two separate apprehensions in the minds of those of us who support the Amendment. The first is that without some limitation of this kind this part of the Bill might apply to property which is not residential at all. The second apprehension is that it might apply to property which, although mixed residential and non-residential, is of a kind and scope which we feel should not be dealt with in the manner laid down in Part I.
The Solicitor-General has argued that if there were non-residential premises into which the tenant moved and took up his temporary habitation shortly before the date of expiry, that would not attract the provisions of Part 1 of the Act. He prayed in aid the use of the word "living" as the technical term in the Rent Restriction Acts. He overlooked the reason the Rent Restriction Acts do not cover non-residential property. It is not by reason of the exclusive force of the word "living" but by reason of the exclusive force of the word "house." The basic conception is "house."
In various cases arising under the Rent Restriction Acts, it has been ruled that a person who was living, and more or less permanently living, in premises which were not in themselves adapted for residence could not invoke the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts because the premises were not a house. In fact, the term "living" has been treated as having the opposite force to that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to it in this Clause. Therefore, on the first count, I feel that unless there is some limitation, some change in the wording, this part of the Bill will be found to cover premises which are not residential, and there will be a quite considerable loophole where residence is taken up for a short time or where there is temporary use of such premises by the tenant for sleeping or other forms of habitation.
As regards mixed premises, it seems to me that the Solicitor-General put Part I of this Bill in a rather new light in his remarks to the House. We have all along been led to understand that it was the protection of a tenant in his


domestic occupation which was the aim of Part I and not that the intention was to protect him in his tenancy of non-residential property which happened to be conjoined or linked up with it. Now we are told that there was a subsidiary aim to Part I and that was to protect mixed premises. Admittedly the Solicitor-General said "mixed residential and shop premises," but there is nothing in the terms of the Bill to restrict it to mixed residential and shop premises. It may be mixed premises of any kind. It may include a factory or a workshop and a block of offices where there is living accommodation and where tenants are living, a solicitor's office and so forth.
So we must not be misled by the limitation which the Solicitor-General imported. He is now claiming it is the object of Part I to protect a tenant not only in his home but in his business premises. To me that is a quite new application of this part of the Bill. In so far as it is desired to give protection to a mixed residential and shop property, that protection is given under the provisions of Part II. All along the Government have argued that they have no desire to protect any kind of non-residential property except shop property and so the second half of a possible case falls.
I feel that on both counts, first, the danger that this Clause might cover property which is not residential at all, and secondly, the admitted fact that it could cover property which is only partly residential and is either protected by Part II or is property which the Government decide they do not want to protect at all, it is most essential that we should introduce some limitation in this Clause to import protection for the residential character of this property.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not think anyone could deny that this Clause is rather obscurely worded. It is far better to face the fact than to try to skate round it. On the other hand, one has to consider whether the Amendment would do anything to correct that position. The Solicitor-General has said that this Clause clearly applies to mixed property, that is to say, to property which is partly a dwelling and is residential, and may be also, as to the rest of the premises, a shop or used for some other purposes of occupation.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I think there is some foundation in the Clause for the Solicitor-General's argument because it distinctly refers to property in which the tenant is living or a part thereof. It therefore clearly indicates premises of which a part may be occupied for the purpose of dwelling and another part for some other purpose. At the same time it is perfectly clear that the wording of the Clause might lead to difficulty. I think that the matter would be completely clarified if, instead of inserting the words "residential property" the words "residential property or premises which are partly residential or used for residential purposes" were inserted. That would clearly—

Mr. George Thomas: It is as clear as mud now.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not suppose that my hon. Friend understands the Clause, either in its present form or as it would be if amended, but it seems to me that what it is sought to do by this Clause is to say that it is to apply to residential property, for otherwise the term "dwelling" would have no sense or meaning. It is no use the Solicitor-General saying that "residing" is an ugly word. It may be ugly but it is intelligible.

Mr. John Foster: Has the hon. and learned Member considered the protection given to people who live in shops by Clause 10 (2, b) and would that satisfy him? Does he think that is an answer to the Solicitor-General?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I quite agree, and that, of course, makes it so confusing. Here we have a two-fold classification. One part expressly refers to dwellings, and in the long Title the term "residential property" is specifically used. Although there is provision made for shops and shops only, the first part does undoubtedly refer to property which may be something more than a dwelling—

Mr. Foster: Not shops only.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I agree. It refers to property which may be something more than a dwelling, and that is where the confusion arises. It is no use the Solicitor-General trying to make out that this is clear, because it is not. I should have thought that the wording of Clause 1 might have been altered to make clear that what is intended is to include pro-


perty used for residential occupation even where there is another part of the property occupied for some other purpose. It is perfectly clear that the Clause as it stands does not easily indicate that. I think that the proper thing to do would be to import words which would achieve that end. I do not think the Amendment really does that; it is very limited and does not remove the confusion, and I could not support it.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Foster: The Solicitor-General put forward an objection in principle to the Amendment, and his argument was that we want to protect mixed property and the usual mixed property he took was a shop and dwelling accommodation. He said that if the Clause were partly restricted to residential property, it would not give protection to the mixed property which included the shops. But protection is already given under Clause 10 (2, b) to mixed property. I quite agree that it is not quite the same kind of protection. I want to try to convince the Solicitor-General that it is not necessary to have the same kind of protection as we have under Clause 1 for the mixed property.
I will take an instance of what would happen under this Bill. A gentleman may take a lease of a shop for seven years—I am using the term "take a lease" in the layman's way and not indicating the type of lease—and he is entitled to the protection of this Measure. He goes along to his solicitor to get advice on what protection he is entitled to have. If he has acquired the tail end of a 21-year lease, he gets the protection of Clause 1, but if he has a new lease he gets the protection of Clause 10 (2, b). What is the sense in that? From the layman's point of view he has taken a new lease on a shop, but from a legal point of view he has been assigned a lease of over 21 years under Clause 1. Surely the protection given to shops in premises which consist partly of shops and partly of accommodation is sufficient protection for a mixed tenancy.
On this side of the House we think that the Government have been very cowardly in bringing forward this legislation instead of facing the problem and giving better protection than they give under this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS:

"Oh."] I know that hon. Members do not like that, but they have refused to face the problem and have put in stopgap legislation which produces even more anomalies in this welter of rent restriction, control of tenancy, rent tribunals and so on, and they make confusion worse confounded by making a purely arbitrary distinction between the two types of leases. If the long Title is observed, it is quite easy. One divides the two classes into residential property and gives them protection under the first part of the long Title. We then look at the second part of the long Title and give protection for the renewal of tenancies of shops and keep the definition in Clause 10 (2, b), and the whole thing is much simpler. Then there is not the overlapping to which the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) referred, and the division is quite simple.
It was said by the Solicitor-General that the instances given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), were far-fetched. They are not far-fetched, because if this anomalous position is established very important tenancies which involve a lot of money may be continued to the benefit of the tenant. The House will appreciate that this concerns a lease of 21 years. Let us take one where the lease is for 99 years and where there is a big block of offices or flats bringing in anything from £5 to £500 a week. There the ground lease is substantial and the worth of the tenancies of the flats and offices is many thousands of pounds a year. In such a case it is not inconceivable to imagine a tenancy being worth anything between £40,000 to £100,000 a year. The ground tenant can get the benefit of a couple of hundred thousand pounds by moving into one room.
If the Solicitor-General is convinced that that is possible, would he not think it desirable again—he has one further opportunity I understand of reconsidering the matter when the Bill goes to another place—to take the opportunity of preventing such unjustifiable gain to a tenant just because the wording of this Clause does not differentiate between a residential property and a property which is mixed in the sense of one room and one office or 500 rooms and 500 offices. Surely that is wrong, and is a case for looking


at the wording again. As I said, there is sufficient protection under Clause 10 (2, b) for the typical case of a mixed tenant, and I quite agree that he should have that protection. Would the Solicitor-General tell the House what he thinks about that?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to Clause 10 (2). Is not the trouble there that that Clause is limited and applies to the actual tenant, or someone in his employment in that particular trade and that that limits the protection?

Mr. Foster: I do not think so. A tenant in a shop gets protection, as does the typical case which the Solicitor-General wants to have covered.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It would not be as wide as under that Clause, assuming it was made clear that it applies to mixed property like shops and residences. That is much wider.

Mr. Foster: I think it is wider in the sense that it concerns a member of a family.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is wider, never mind to what extent.

Mr. Foster: Yes, but that would be a reason for amending Clause 10 (2, b), but it is not a reason for refraining from amending Clause 1.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is a good reason for not substituting Clause 10 (2) for Clause 1.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had a fairly lengthy discussion on these three very important words, and even the utterances of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) have made no impression on his Front Bench. The arguments against the present wording in this Clause are in my opinion quite overwhelming, and I regret the attitude adopted by the Solicitor-General with regard to our Amendment to make the Clause correspond with what was said on Second Reading. As we have been unable to make any further impression upon him, it is obviously of very little use continuing the debate and we should reveal our opinions in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 236.

Division No. 68.]
AYES
[4.55 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Heath, Edward


Alport, C. J. M.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Cundiff, F. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hollis, M. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.


Banks, Col. C.
de Chair, Somerset
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.


Baxter, A. B.
De la Bère, R.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Beamish, Major Tufton
Deedes, W. F.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bell, R. M.
Dodos-Parker, A. D
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,.)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Drayson, G. B.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Drewe, C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Hurd, A. R.


Birch, Nigel
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Duthie, W. S.
Hutchison, Colonel James


Black, C. W.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir George


Boothby, R.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Foster, John
Lambert, Hon. G


Braine, B. R.
Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lindsay, Martin


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Rt Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Butcher, H. W.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Low, A. R. W.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harden, J. R. E.
McCallum, Major D.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Clyde, J. L
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McKibbin, A.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)
Hay, John
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Maclay, Hon. John


Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Heald, Lionel
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)




MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Summers, G. S.


Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)
Profumo, J. D.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Raikes, H. V.
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


Marples, A. E.
Redmayne, M.
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Maudling R.
Robson-Brown, W.
Thorp, Brig, R. A. F.


Mellor, Sir John
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John


Molson, A. H. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
Touche, G. C.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ropner, Col. L
Turner, H. F. L.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Russell, R. S.
Turton, R. H.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Vane, W. M. F.


Nabarro, G.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Nicholls, Harmar
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Scott, Donald
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. G.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Waller
Watkinson, H.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Watt, Sir George Harvie


Odey, G. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Webbe, Sir Harold


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Snadden, W. McN.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Osborne, C.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)
Wills, G.


Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Storey, S.
Wood, Hon. R.


Pickthorn, K.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)



Powell, J. Enoch
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Studholme, H. G.
Major Conant and Mr. Digby.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Deer, G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Adams, H. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Jay, D. P. T.


Albu, A. H.
Dodds, N. N.
Jenkins, R. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Donnelly, D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Driberg, T. E. N
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Dye, S.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Awbery, S. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Ayles, W. H.
Edwards, W. J (Stepnay)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Baird, J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A J
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Keenan, W.


Bartley, P.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Kenyon, C.


Benn, Wedgwood
Ewart, R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Benson, G.
Fernyhough, E.
Kinley, J.


Beswick, F.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Woolwich, E.)
Finch, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Bing, G. H. C
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Blenkinsop, A.
Follick, M.
Logan, D. G


Blyton, W. R.
Foot, M. M.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Boardman, H.
Forman, J. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Booth, A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.


Bottomley, A. G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McInnes, J.


Bowden, H. W
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gibson, C. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Glanville, James (Consett)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gooch, E. G
Manuel, A. C


Brown, George (Belper)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Grenfell, D. R.
Mellish, R. J.


Burke, W. A.
Grey, C. F.
Messer, F.


Burton, Miss E.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Grimond, J.
Mikardo, Ian


Callaghan, L. J.
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Mitchison, G. R.


Carmichael, J.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)



Champion, A. J.
Hamilton, W. W
Moeran, E. W.


Clunie, J.
Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Hardman, D. R
Moody, A. S.


Coldrick, W.
Hardy, E. A
Morley, R.


Collick, P.
Hargreaves, A.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Cook, T. F.
Harrison, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Mort, D. L.


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Hewitson, Capt. M
Moyle, A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Nally, W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Houghton, D.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Dames, P.
Hubbard, T.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Orbach, M.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


de Freitas, G.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pannell, T. C.







Parker, J.
Slater, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Paton, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Pearson, A.
Snow, J. W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Peart, T. F.
Sorensen, R. W.
West, D. G.


Poole, C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh E.)


Popplewell, E.
Sparks, J. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Porter, G.
Steele, T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wigg, G


Rankin, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Rees, Mrs. D.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Reeves, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, David (Neath)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Richards, R.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Robens, A.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wise, F. J.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thurtle, Ernest
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Timmons, J.
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wyatt, W. L.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Tomney, F.
Yates, V. F.


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Turner-Samuels, M.



Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Vernon, W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Simmons, C. J.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Royle and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "twenty-one," and to insert "thirty."
In our discussions on the last Amendment I referred to the Gracious Speech and I quoted the expression used in that speech:
ground leases relating to residential property.
It is quite clear now that the words "relating to residential property" were not entirely accurate; and it would now appear as the Clause stands that the words, "ground leases" are not in any respect entirely accurate. On the Committee stage we endeavoured to insert in this Bill the words "ground leases" and a definition of that phrase—[Interruption.] I am sorry that my remarks appear to cause amusement on the back benches opposite. I do not think there is anything particularly funny about them.
I was referring to the reply of the learned Attorney-General on that point and endeavouring to remind the House of it. He said it was not practical to find a satisfactory definition of the phrase "ground lease," and so the period of 21 years was arbitrarily selected as the line to be drawn in this part of the Bill. With regard to the definition which we put forward, which had been taken out of an Act of Parliament passed in 1939, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said this:
By 1941 experience had shown that the definition in the Act had become completely

unworkable, and in that year an amending Bill was passed, the definition was repealed and the distinction between ground leases and other leases was abolished for the purpose of the 1939 Act on which this Amendment was modelled.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 739.]
I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here today. I do not know why he is not present. As he was present on the Committee stage dealing with this, I thought he would be present today. No doubt there is some good reason for his absence. I have not communicated with him, nor am I proposing to engage in a personal attack, but I should have thought it was an occasion on which he might have been present to correct something he told the Committee which was entirely inaccurate.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said on Committee stage—and no doubt it counted a great deal with the Committee—that the definition which we had put forward had been repealed. Well, in fact it has not. It is still on the Statute Book. Why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should make that statement to the Committee I do not know. He went on to say that the definition we put forward had been shown to have become completely unworkable. No evidence was advanced for that at all. There is no reported case on that definition to show that in any sense it has become unworkable.
The implication of what he said was that the 1941 amending Act was brought in because of the defectiveness of that definition. There again, the right hon.


and learned Gentleman was entirely inaccurate. The reason for the 1941 amending Act was the introduction of the War Damage Act which made the distinction drawn in the 1939 Act between ground leases and other leases no longer necessary to maintain. I am therefore sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here to explain why he made these statements, which in my opinion, are entirely inaccurate.
We put forward that definition of ground leases and in our opinion it was a very good definition. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman, apart from seeking to meet our argument by making statements which were patently not accurate—and when I say "patently" I should say not accurate when one looks to see precisely what was the position, that definition not having been repealed and still being on the Statute Book even now—did go on to recognise that drawing the line at leases of over 21 years would mean that more than ground leases were caught in the net set by this Bill.
Views may differ as to the number of leases of over 21 years, which are not ground leases, which are likely to be brought in, but it is becoming not an uncommon practice to let shops and other business premises; Government Departments I believe take leases very frequently on a rack rent over 21 years. That is becoming by no means uncommon. Views may differ as to the number of leases which are not ground leases which will be brought in by the Bill as drafted. We should try to make certain what we are doing by this Measure in this very badly drafted Clause.
I do not think it in the least degree impossible to provide a satisfactory definition of ground leases—one which would work. Any lawyer has only to look at a document to know whether it is a ground lease or not. I shall not come back to that, but I regret that, in dealing with the definition we put forward, the Attorney-General should have misled the Committee. The Attorney-General was adamant in his refusal to insert a definition, or to insert the words "ground lease" anywhere in this Measure.
Realising that we could not prevail upon the Government by pursuing that line, we have sought to do the next best

thing and to amend the Bill by altering the period and making it apply to leases of over 30 years rather than to leases of over 21 years. The reasons for this Amendment are twofold. One reason which should commend itself to the Government is that a period of over 30 years is provided in the Scottish Bill which will be discussed when we have concluded our consideration of this Measure. Why should there be a different period in Scotland? That is one argument. I hope that the Solicitor-General, even without the assistance of the Lord Advocate, will be able to satisfy us why the period should be longer in Scotland than it is in England.
The second and perhaps the more cogent reason is that I have never heard of a ground lease being granted for a period of less than 30 years. Usually it is granted for a very much longer period. I do not believe that by putting the period up to 30 years we shall be excluding any category of tenancy which this Bill was intended to include under Part I. If we put it up to 30, we shall exclude a considerable number of leases which are not ground leases in any sense whatever and which were not intended to be within the scope of this part of the Bill. I hope that I have made the point clearly. In order to make this Bill apply to ground leases, and to exclude a large number of leases which are not ground leases, I move that these words be inserted.

Mr. John Hay: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would remind the Committee that it has been our objective in these debates to improve what we consider to be a Measure which in many ways is extremely unsatisfactory and almost unworkable. This Amendment will make it far easier for people to understand that what is really struck at by Part I of the Bill is the long ground lease. I do not propose to traverse the ground which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), has already covered in describing the various ways in which the Attorney-General, on the Committee stage, endeavoured to persuade the Committee that there was no satisfactory definition of a ground lease.
5.15 p.m.
I should have thought that a Socialist Attorney-General would have considered the admirable precedent set for him some years ago by a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Snowden. In the Finance Act of, I think, 1931, there was a special provision dealing with ground leases. When that Act brought in the Land Tax certain properties were exempted. The sort of properties exempted were those let on leases of 50 years or more. Those were considered to be properties let on ground leases. I should have thought that that example might have been one to which the Attorney-General could quickly have flown if he was in any doubt what was meant by a long lease or a ground lease.
Our purpose is to improve the Bill. For all practical purposes, there is not a great deal of difference between a lease of over 21 years and a lease of over 30 years. When we bear in mind that most of the cases which it is intended by this Measure to protect—those small people living in what they consider to be their own houses which they have had in their families for a good many years—the likelihood is that most of them will have had very long leases, not of 21 years or 30 years, but often of 99 years. We say, therefore, that it is not often that one finds a property let on a lease of 21 years if it is to be used for residential purposes.
We want to try to protect the person who is living in what he regards as his own home which he has on a lease. It is very seldom that one finds a property to let on that sort of basis under a ground lease of 21 years. In practice the figure is usually 99 years. We think that 30 years, which would marry this Measure with the Scottish Measure, would be about the right period to make clear what is meant by a ground lease and to make clear that this Bill applies to ground leases. In seconding the Amendment, I urge the Government to think a second time about this matter. I ask the Solicitor-General—realising that the Attorney-General blundered badly on the Committee stage by telling us something which was entirely inaccurate—to say that this Amendment can be accepted.

Mr. G. Thomas: Those hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken in this debate have been in perfect harmony with the attitude of the Conservative Party

purposes of hon. Members on this side. It may be the case that the interests of throughout the debates on this Bill. They have sought to emasculate the Bill. They have sought to cut out, category by category, all beneficiaries from its scope. If this unhappy Amendment were accepted, then another class of person—to the great delight of hon. Gentlemen opposite—would not benefit under this Measure. It is clear that the Opposition are seeking not to extend any benefits. The people to whom the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) referred are already protected by the 21-year limitation. He is seeking to limit the benefit and, in that way, to save more money for the ground landlords.

Mr. Hay: Nonsense.

Mr. Thomas: It is obvious that it hurts the hon. Gentleman to have his real motive revealed before the House. It is clear that the game being played by the Opposition is to fight to the last ditch for the ground landlord. I commend them on the obvious sincerity with which they defend the interests of the ground landlords. Many hon. Members opposite have already announced, at various stages of the Bill, their interest in this matter as directors of great concerns which will suffer by its terms. I quite understand that they will not miss a further opportunity of limiting the protection which this Bill will give to people, such as those in my own constituency, about whom I hope to speak on the Third Reading.

Mr. Black: I think it is usually considered, under the rules and customs of this House, that an hon. Member, who has declared his interest when he has taken part in the discussions in the previous stages of a Bill, is not called upon, on any and every occasion on which he rises to speak, to continue in a kind of parrot-like fashion to repeat the fact that he has an interest in property. Perhaps the hon. Member on the other side will take a little trouble in future, before intervening in matters of this kind, to inform himself as to the customs and practices of this House, and, if he does that, I am quite certain that we shall be able to proceed with the discussion of these matters without foolish and irrelevant interventions.
We have listened to an unfortunately typical speech from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). It was a speech characterised by inaccuracy and


by misrepresentation of the intentions and truth and accuracy are even higher interests than interests of a financial character, and I want to bring back the attention of hon. Members to one or two of the entirely unjustified statements which have just been made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West.
He has stated quite categorically that the whole effort of hon. Members on this side has been to limit the scope of and protection afforded by this Bill, and, having made that statement, I will invite him, if he will be good enough to give me his attention, to refer—because it is relevant to this particular allegation—to page 11, lines 35–37 of the Bill, to which there is a subsequent Amendment on the Order Paper, sponsored by hon. Members on this side of the House. The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent certain classes of persons being deprived of the protection which this Bill would give them when it becomes an Act. If the sincerity of hon. Members is being called into question, we shall be able to judge of the sincerity of the hon. Member who has just spoken according to whether he accompanies us into the Division Lobby when that Amendment is reached.
The purpose of that Amendment is to remove the exclusion, which the Bill at present contains, from the protection provided by the Bill, of those persons occupying premises where an interest belonging to a public authority is concerned, and where, in the public interest, a new tenancy ought not to be granted. We are desirous of extending the protection of the Bill to that class of person, who is at present excluded from protection, and I hope that the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman opposite will become clear and be revealed by the manner on which he votes on that Amendment.
What we are doing here, in the Amendment now before the House, is simply to give effect to what, from start to finish, has been claimed to be the aim and intention of those who sponsor the Bill. All along, the contention has been that this is a Bill to deal with ground leases, and we contend that a period of 30 years and over is a more suitable definition or classification of a ground lease than the existing definition or classification as a lease of over 21 years.
I will suggest for the consideration of the House that it is an unheard of thing for a ground lease ever to be granted for a period of less than 30 years. The essence of a ground lease is that it is a lease of a piece of ground where an obligation is imposed on the lessee to erect a building, and, as a matter of practical knowledge and experience, no one would ever contemplate erecting a building on a site where the lease was 30 years or less, as it would be impossible for him to get adequate recompense for that expenditure over such a short period as 30 years or less.
This Amendment, therefore, simply seeks to carry into effect—in an imperfect way, we agree, because we would rather have had a proper definition of a ground lease than the extension of the period over 30 years—what all along has been declared to be the intention; namely, to confine within the ambit of Part I ground leases and only ground leases.

Mr. Gibson: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) got rather annoyed with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), because he said that nearly all the Amendments which were discussed on the Committee stage and the first two discussed today would have had the effect of reducing the number of people who will be beneficiaries under the Bill. There is no doubt about that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will deny it.

Mr. Black: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, the statement to which I took exception was not "nearly every Amendment," but "every Amendment."

Mr. G. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman will also excuse me, I am quite prepared to meet him and to say that 90 per cent. and over of the Amendments from the other side were attempts to exclude people from benefit.

Mr. Gibson: I am not very interested in the discussion between the two hon. Gentlemen. The real point about this Amendment is that it will have the effect, which so many of the Opposition Amendments would have, of reducing the number of people who will benefit under this Bill, and therefore I fail entirely to understand how the Conservative Party, even with the effrontery for which they are famous can say that they are attempting to improve the Bill. They are making it


worse, and this Amendment would make it worse.
I am not a lawyer, and I would therefore hesitate to butt in on this argument whether the definition given by the Attorney-General covered ground leases or leases which are not ground leases. All I can say is that the Title of this Bill does not specifically refer only to ground leases, and I am quite sure that, when the Tory Party discussed the matter at their annual conference last year at which a resolution was carried, they meant to try to assist people with long leases, whether ground leases or just leases on the houses themselves.
We are anxious, and I think the whole House is anxious, to protect the people who have paid for the houses in which they are living, many of whom have raised their families in them, against the danger of being robbed of their houses merely because, by the passage of time, the lease runs out. We consider that handing these people over, however legally it may be done, to the ground landlords is not entirely satisfactory, and, later on, we want to see something very much stronger in the way of protection for leaseholders than is provided by this Bill.
However, this Bill does give considerable protection, and I therefore hope that the Opposition will cease trying to whittle down the number of people who will derive benefit from this Bill. If they do not, all I can say is that I hope that the Press will take notice of it and that the people of this country will realise that, when the Tory Party pass a resolution about leasehold reform, they really do not mean it.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Powell: A slightly wrong impression might have been given by the remarks which the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) has just addresed to the House. It is as well to be clear as to what sort of persons will be excluded by the substitution of "thirty" for "twenty-one." The only people who will be deprived of protection thereby are people occupying property of a rateable value outside the rent restriction limits and who hold that property on leases of between 21 and 30 years. They will be given a protection which is not accorded to persons holding similar property on leases of less than 21 years.
To take a concrete example, imagine a property of a rateable value of £150 in London. If it is held on a lease of 20 years, the occupier has no protection under the Rent Restrictions Acts and he gains no protection under the Bill. As the Bill stands, if that occupier holds the property on a 22 years' lease, then he will have a two years' extension. That is a quite absurd anomaly, outside the intentions of the Government.

Mr. Awbery: A man with a lease with 29 years unexpired would not receive the benefit of the Bill, but a man with 31 years would do so. The same principle applies, whatever number of years is agreed upon in a Bill.

Mr. Powell: On the contrary, unless it can be shown that ground leases—that is, leases which fall outside the Rent Restrictions Acts because the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value—are granted for less than 30 years, which my hon. Friends and I believe cannot be shown, there is no reason for a figure lower than 30 being written into the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: At one stage in the discussion on the Amendment a certain amount of heat began to be engendered in the debate. Probably my hon. Friends on this side and hon. Members opposite will agree that it was rather a relief to our feelings that that should be so with a Bill of this sort, but they will probably also agree that we would make more progress with the examination of the matter if we brought the debate back to an atmosphere more appropriate to a difficult Bill of this sort. That is what I shall endeavour to do.
I begin by saying that it is, possibly, a little unfortunate for the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) to think it right to make a charge against my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General without giving him the courtesy of notice that he was proposing to do so, and then complaining that my right hon. and learned Friend was not here after he had not been given such notice.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I said I regretted that the Attorney-General was not here, because I naturally assumed that he would be here as he dealt with this part of the Bill on the Committee stage. Had I thought for a moment that he


would not be here, I certainly would have told him of the obvious inaccuracy into which he fell on that occasion. But I do not see that because the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not present for the discussion of a Bill with which he dealt on Committee stage, I should refrain from drawing attention to something which is obviously wrong.

The Solicitor-General: It is a matter, perhaps, of personal taste, on which our respective views are not quite in accord. It would have been quite easy for the hon. and learned Member to write a note yesterday to say that he had that intention if, in fact, he had it. Perhaps, however, it would be better to draw a veil over the incident, particularly as the charge is not well founded.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Indeed it is.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member says that the charge is well founded. If he will excuse my saying so, it is not well founded. I will refer him to the Sections to which my right hon. and learned Friend was referring and then the hon. and learned Member can judge for himself. I hope that if he thinks I am right, he will withdraw what he has said.
The Sections in question were Section 13 of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939, and the definition of a ground lease that goes with that Section is contained in Section 24 of that Act. If the hon. and learned Member would turn to Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) (Amendment) Act, 1941, he would find, in subsection (1), that:
The principal Act shall apply to ground leases in like manner as it applies to other leases, and accordingly sections thirteen and fourteen of that Act shall cease to have effect.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The definition Section is not repealed.

The Solicitor-General: I was just about to concede that point. In terms, that does not repeal the definition in Section 24, but it does repeal one of, I think, the only two Sections to which the definition Section has reference.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Mr. Manningham-Buller rose—

The Solicitor-General: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me to complete what I want to say, he can then carry on the argument. Not only is that the case, but when the consolidation Act of 1943 was enacted, that definition of a ground lease was no longer included in that Act, so that although upon a very limited view it can be said that the definition was not, in terms, repealed by the 1941 Act, what the 1941 Act did was to repeal the Sections in the 1939 Act for which the definition was included in that Act, and the definition was not subsequently reproduced in the consolidating Act of 1943. Therefore—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Mr. Manningham-Buller rose—

The Solicitor-General: I am not giving way until I have made the point I want to make. Therefore, in substance, it was perfectly true to say, as my right hon. and learned Friend did say, that the definition in the 1939 Act had been removed from the face of existing legislation; that is the effect of what he said. That explanation could have been given by him in person had the hon. and learned Member been so good as to give him notice.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. That, of course, is not what the Attorney-General said on the Committee stage, and it is no use the right hon. and learned Gentleman now seeking to put a gloss upon those words. Indeed, the sections to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred—I am grateful to him for doing so—in the 1941 Act make it quite clear that the point I made was entirely justified.
I will read what the Attorney-General said:
By 1941 experience had shown that the definition in the Act had become completely unworkable …
I drew attention to that not being the case. Now, mark these clear and unambiguous subsequent words of the Attorney-General:
… and in that year"—
that is, 1941—
an amending Bill was passed, the definition was repealed …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 739.]
The definition was not repealed in 1941. It remained on the Statute Book. The


reason for the alteration had nothing to do with the definition of ground leases, but was because of the passage of the War Damage Act; and that is easily ascertainable.

The Solicitor-General: To go on trying to draw distinctions where they really do not exist, in substance at any rate, is not advancing the interests of the House.
What happened was that Section 13 was, in terms, repealed, and if we repeal Section 13 we are taking away all reason for the existence of the definition. That was followed up by the fact that the definition was not reproduced in the 1943 Act. It is a question as to how one should describe that legislative process but I would put it to the House, if we are really entering into the minutiae of expression, that it is certainly not an inaccurate way of putting it to say that the definition was repealed. At least, it would be perfectly accurate to say—perhaps the hon. and learned Member will give me the courtesy of his attention. At least, it would be accurate to say that it had been repealed by 1943. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member would agree to that.
However, whether that is so or not, I now pass on to the substance of the argument and away from the personal charges that have been made. We have carefully examined this position, as we have done a long time ago, and our researches lead us to think that the statement made by the Attorney-General in opening the Second Reading debate was perfectly accurate. It has not been shown to be in any substantial sense inaccurate, and I would desire to repeat what he said on that occasion. He said:
I have been talking all this time about ground leases, building leases. It is very difficult to define them, and the Bill, as a matter of fact, uses the expression 'long leases granted for more than 21 years.' In practice, such leases are almost invariably, if not invariably, building leases. We shall cover by this method of definition everything we intend to protect and it is most unlikely that we shall cover anything else. Leases of houses already built are generally for three, five, seven, 14 or, occasionally, 21 years. Although I have not heard of such a case, there may be exceptional ones where leases of already existing houses extend for more than 21 years. If we did protect an occasional house of that kind, it would be most exceptional and no great harm would be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 382.]

That is a general statement of the position. It is accurate as far as we are able to ascertain, and if it is accurate it is perfectly satisfactory as it stands. We believe that we give cover and protection in all cases where necessary. If it is the case that exceptional circumstances may creep within the ambit of the Bill, so be it. It means that in exceptional cases we may have given cover where it is not necessary. But that is the exceptional case. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there are other cases. If I heard him aright I think he said that in the case of leases to Government Departments or something of that sort, there might be a long lease at a rack rent.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If I may help the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I said that it is by no means uncommon in these days to have leases of over 21 years for shop premises and business premises, and quite frequently leases are taken by Government Departments for periods longer than that. I am sure the Solicitor-General will find that that is so.

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that it is by no means rare that that should happen. All I know is that our researches do not accord with that. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned business premises and shop premises. Only mixed premises would come within Part I, because the premises would only be within Part I if the tenant or a member of his family lived in the premises. That, I should have thought, would exclude many kinds of premises to which the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring. He simply uses a vague generalisation and makes a very broad statement about it. It is difficult to get to grips with it without having any details, especially as we ourselves, as far as our researches have gone, have not been led to the same conclusion as he has. Therefore, it seems to us that the situation remains as it was when my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made the statement which I have quoted.
We bring in cases which need protection. We think that nothing is to be gained by arbitrarily increasing the period from 21 to 30 years. An hon. Member has referred to the Long Leases


(Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, where 31 years is the period mentioned. It is a period used for a very different purpose. It is used as a boundary of time beyond which leases are registerable under the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857. We have no analogous time period in England, and it does not seem to us that there is any logical or practical reason why, that being so, we should adopt that purely arbitrary extension of a period which does not coincide with the experience which we have had. I hope the House will agree that this Amendment ought to be rejected.

Mr. J. Foster: Mr. J. Foster rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we ought to make progress.

Mr. Foster: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there has not been a long period of discussion on this Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have discussed this comparatively small Amendment for three quarters of an hour, and we have a great many Amendments on the Order Paper.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Foster: If I may, I will particularly address my remarks to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to convince you that it is not a small Amendment. The discussion in Committee on the Amendment about ground leases proceeded on the footing that the Attorney-General was intending only to protect people who have a house under a ground lease. That is the answer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). If an Amendment cuts down the number of people protected by the Bill, it is not necessarily bad if the people protected by the Clause as drafted were not intended by the drafters of the Bill to be covered. The Solicitor-General has proceeded also on the same argument, and wants the same thing as we do—namely, only to protect people whose ground leases come to an end and not to protect people who have a rack rent of say 21 years or more.
The remarks of the Attorney-General on this Amendment in the Committee stage show that clearly. He said:
… I said, and subsequent inquiries confirmed me in the view, that we thought the

test we had adopted in the Bill would, in fact, embrace all ground leases and very little else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 742.]
That shows that the Attorney-General wanted the Bill to protect ground leases and nothing else. Part of the argument of the Solicitor-General would seem to be that the Bill as drafted now only protects ground leases and that if the Opposition Amendment were carried it would exclude certain types of ground leases. The basis on which the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General made their arguments is that they want to protect ground leases and nothing else, and that is the answer to the hon. Member for Clapham.
The question I want to ask the Solicitor-General is this. Has he ever heard of a ground lease—can he give an instance—for between 21 and 30 years? He seeks to throw the onus on us of saying that we have not proved that the Bill would protect people on a rack rent for a period between 21 and 30 years. That is easy to do with mixed property. Anybody who has had anything to do with the letting of shops—I have some acquaintance with that—knows that there are shops which are let at over 21 years; and they are mixed premises at that. So there would be shops on a rack rent, with mixed accommodation, and owing to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's refusal to accept the last Amendment this is another anomaly which creeps in. There are many instances of shops with mixed accommodation which are let at a rack rent for more than 21 years. But let hon. Members produce a ground lease for more than 21 and less than 30 years. I do not think they can do it.

Mr. MacColl: I could have produced one if I had been given notice. I could have produced my own.

Mr. Foster: A ground lease?

Mr. MacColl: Yes.

Mr. Foster: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will tell us a little bit more about the ground lease. Is he saying that between 21 and 30 years ago his land was not built on, that somebody built on the land and then let it at a ground lease for between 21 and 30 years? I am sure he is wrong about that. I will give him an opportunity to intervene again if he is really saying that.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. and learned Gentleman heard what I said. I am not submitting myself to cross-examination. I was asked, as were other hon. Members, to give information. I merely give the information that the ground lease under which I hold my house is for between 20 and 30 years.

Mr. Foster: I think the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension. I am sure he is absolutely sincere and that he believes what he says; it is just that he is wrong.

Mr. MacColl: Where are we getting? The hon. and learned Gentleman challenges us to produce such a lease.

Mr. Foster: A ground lease.

Mr. MacColl: A ground lease which does not come within the Rent Restrictions Acts. He starts on the assumption that such a thing is impossible and if we produce one he says we must be wrong. That is an insincere challenge to us because he does not accept our reply.

Mr. Foster: I said the hon. Gentleman must be wrong because he said he did not want to submit himself to cross-examination. When I gave him an example of what must have happened he did not say, "Yes, it was empty and the house was built." I know he is sincere, I know he believes what he says and I know he has had legal training, but it is very difficult to believe what he says. If he has such a ground lease, then it is an exceptional lease and it does not justify this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has to say that 30 years ago the land was unbuilt on, that a builder built on it and let the building at a ground rent of 21 years.

Mr. Granville West: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman know that under certain manors building leases were granted; plots of land were leased upon which the lessee had to build a house; the lease was for 21 years renewable; and every time the lease expired the lessee had to apply for a new lease, which was granted. The lease is, therefore, for 21 years. If the lessee fails to send in his notice at the proper time, then, of course, his lease expires.

Mr. Foster: That is a perpetually renewable lease.

Mr. Granville West: No.

Mr. Foster: It is a perpetually renewable lease under the Law of Property Act. Hon. Members really must consider what they are saying. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has challenged me. Let me issue another challenge. Hon. Members opposite are saying that they know of such a case where there was a plot of land unbuilt on; it was then let to a builder and he had to build a house on it. Even in the times of a Conservative Government, when one could build a good house cheaply, the house would cost, let us say, between £300 and £500. The hon. Member for Widnes says that at the end of the lease of 21 years the house went back to the ground landlord. I do not believe anybody would have built a house on those terms, nor does the hon. Member. I cannot accept that he believes such a house would have been built on those terms.

Mr. Granville West: May I inform the hon. and learned Member that in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Rev. Llywelyn Williams) large numbers of houses were built under the manor then existing and leases were granted for 21 years renewable up to a period of 99 years. The last lease, which comes under this Bill, is for 21 years, and if the Amendment is accepted it means that a number of people in the area of my hon. Friend will have no protection whatsoever under the Bill.

Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman say that they have no protection under the Bill at present, whether it is amended or not? Does he agree with me—

Mr. Granville West: I said that they will have no protection if the Amendment is accepted.

Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there will be no protection for these people under the Bill as it stands? He must study the Bill. Even a non-lawyer or a layman must read the Bill, which says "exceeding 21 years." I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to understand that when he says "21 years" it is not the same as saying "exceeding 21 years." Cannot the hon. Gentleman understand that?
I think this discussion has shown how confused are hon. Members opposite. It has shown that they think there is a house on a ground lease of less than 30 years. I do not see how anybody in their senses


would build a house and then be willing to lose it to the ground landlord at the end of 30 years, and I appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) to tell us what he thinks about it. Does he not feel that some of his hon. Friends are incorrect in their appreciation?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am taking it all sub silentio.

Mr. Foster: I know that when the hon. and learned Gentleman takes refuge in Latin it is because he wants to be polite to his fellow hon. Members on that side of the House. The point is quite clear. The Government say that they achieve the object of protecting the ground lessee by making the period 21 years, and they agree with us that the object of the Bill is to protect only the ground lessee. I appreciate that a section of hon. Members opposite want to protect everybody who is in a house, whether he is a ground lessee or not, which is why the hon. Member for Clapham speaks on the basis that if there is anything which cuts down the Bill it is bad and he is against it. I understand that point of view, but I do not understand the point of view of the

people who are piloting the Bill, who agree with us that the object is to protect the ground lessee and the ground lessee only, and then say that 21 years achieves that object and does not bring in rack rents, because they are thus committed to the view that there are such things as ground leases between 21 years and 30 years.

There may have been a case of a lunatic builder. Let us say that the hon. Member for Widnes was lucky enough to obtain a lease. Obviously, one cannot say that there is not one single ground lease of that sort in England, although in the light of misapprehensions about another property, I am not sure that the hon. Member for Widnes is not also under a misapprehension in this case. The point remains that not only by and large but in the vast majority of cases—I should have thought 100 per cent.—there is no such thing as a ground lease between 21 and 30 years. I ask the Solicitor-General to see whether he can find such leases. If he cannot, let him say so; and that is a reason for accepting the Amendment.

Question put, "That 'twenty-one' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 191.

Division No. 69.]
AYES
[6.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Coldrick, W
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.


Adams, H. R.
Collick, P.
Gibson, C. W.


Albu, A. H.
Cook, T. F.
Gilzean, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Glanville, James (Consett)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Gooch, E. G.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon-Walker, Rt Hon. P. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Grenfell, D. R.


Ayles, W. H.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Grey, C. F.


Baird, J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Daines, P.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)


Bartley, P.
Cullen, Rt. Hon. H.
Grimond, J.


Benn, Wedgwood
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)


Benson, G.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)


Beswick, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hamilton, W. W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hardman, D. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
de Freitas, G.
Hardy, E. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Deer, G.
Hargreaves, A.


Boardman, H.
Delargy, H. J.
Harrison, J.


Booth, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Hayman, F. H.


Bottomley, A. G.
Donnelly, D.
Hewitson, Capt. M


Bowden, H. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hobson, C. R.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Dye, S.
Holman, P.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Houghton, D.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hubbard, T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Ewart, R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Burke, W. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Burton, Miss E.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney S.)
Finch, H. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Jay, D. P. T.


Carmichael, J
Follick, M.
Jenkins, R. H.


Champion, A. J.
Forman, J. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Clunie, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Cooks, F. S.
Freeman. Peter (Newport)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)




Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Orbach, M.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Keenan, W.
Pannell, T. C.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Kenyon, C.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Parker, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.
Paton, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Kinley, J.
Pearson, A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Peart, T. F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Poole, C.
Timmons, J.


Lindgren, G. S.
Popplewell, E.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Porter, G.
Tomney, F.


Logan, D. G.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Rankin, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.


MacColl, J. E.
Rees, Mrs. D.
Vernal, W. F.


McGhee, H. G.
Reeves, J.
Viant, S. P.


McInnes, J.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wallace, H. W.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Weitzman, D.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Richards, R
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
West, D. G.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Manuel, A. C.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mellish, R. J.
Royle, C.
Wigg, G.


Messer, F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Mikardo, Ian
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Moeran, E. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Melton)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Monslow, W.
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Moody, A. S.
Slater, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Morley, R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Snow, J. W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mort, D. L.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wise, F. J.


Moyle, A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mulley, F. W.
Sparks, J. A.
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Murray, J. O.
Steele, T.
Wyatt, W. L.


Nally, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.



Oldfield, W. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oliver, G. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Harvey, Ail Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Alport, C. J. M.
Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Hay, John


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cranborne, Viscount
Head, Brig. A. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Heald, Lionel


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cundiff, F. W.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Banks, Col. C.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baxter, A. B.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hollis, M. C.


Beamish, Major Tufton
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.


Bell, R. M.
de Chair, Somerset
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
De la Bère, R.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Deedes, W. F.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Birch, Nigel
Digby, S. W.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,.)


Bishop, F. P
Dodds-Parker, A. D
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)


Black, C. W.
Drayson, G. B.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Drewe, C
Hurd, A. R.


Boothby, R.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Duthie, W. S.
Hutchison, Colonel James


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Eccles, D. M.
Jeffreys, General Sir George


Braine, B. R.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jennings, R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Foster, John
Lambert, Hon. G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A
Gage, C. H.
Lindsay, Martin


Butcher, H. W.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton.)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Low, A. R. W.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McCallum, Major D.


Clyde, J. L.
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)
Harden, J. R. E.
McKibbin, A.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)







Maclay, Hon. John
Powell, J. Enoch
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Studholme, H. G.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Summers, G. S.


Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)
Raikes, H. V.
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Redmayne, M.
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Marples, A. E.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Maudling R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John


Mellor, Sir John
Roper, Sir Harold
Touche, G. C.


Molson, A. H. E.
Ropner, Col. L
Turner, H. F. L.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Russell, R. S.
Turton, R. H.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Nabarro, G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nicholls, Harmar
Scott, Donald
Watkinson, H.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Watt, Sir George Harvie


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Nutting, Anthony
Snadden, W. McN
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Odey, G. W.
Soames, Capt. C.
Williams, Gerald (Tunbridge)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Wills, G.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Osborne, C.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)



Perkins, W. R. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Storey, S.
Major Conant and


Pickthorn, K.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Mr. Edward Heath.

Sir Patrick Spens: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "immediately before the date of expiry," and to insert:
on and since the twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty.
This Amendment seeks, quite frankly, to exclude certain persons from the benefit of the Bill, and I challenge hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House to say they ought to be included. Its effect is to require that no person who has started to live in the premises as a tenant in right of tenancy after the publication of the Bill shall be entitled to benefit under this Bill. The whole of the case made by the Government for this Measure, and for the accompanying Scottish Measure, is that it is to protect people who have lived in their houses as their homes—to protect them from being turned out by the wicked landlord on the expiration of their leases at the present time.
There are a very great number of ground lessees who have not lived in the premises, but have merely collected the rack rents for the premises or parts of the premises. There has already been a reference to those ground lessees who had the advantage of being lessees of large blocks of property—of offices—and who, at the last moment, would reside in them to qualify as ground lessees living in the premises as at the date when the Bill came into operation. There are a great number of other much less financially ambitious ground lessees merely content

to let the premises at rack rents, and who, for years, have been collecting the rents and nothing more.
One specific case is worth all the theory on this Bill, of which we have had a great deal. In my post last week there was a letter from a landlady, asking these questions:
What are the conditions necessary for claiming the further two years? Must the leaseholder have lived on the premises for any specified length of time? Perhaps I am not very clear. The lease I am interested in expires in June. The holders have been sleeping on the premises for a few nights during the last month only.
In other words, it is perfectly clear that in this instance the ground lessee has intelligently read the terms of this Bill, and realises that as long as he can qualify on the date on which the Bill comes into operation as a person living on the premises he will automatically get a two years' extension of his lease. All he has to do is to go into occupation of one room, or one flat, and he will continue for another two years to draw the rack rents from the rest of the premises. That person has been referred to as a speculator in the fag-ends of leases. That those persons exist there can be no question, and when this Bill was first thought of I am sure there was no intention to benefit a man or woman of that sort.
The Bill has been drafted in such a way that it clearly holds out an enormous inducement to every ground lessee who has been living on the rents during these last years to go into occupation of part of the premises himself and thereby continue for the remaining two years to


collect those rents. All he sacrifices is the rack rent of the room or flat into which he has to go, although he gets the benefit of living there. Now, that cannot be right. It cannot affect the other tenants in the house, because, if the Amendment is accepted, when the lease comes to an end the sub-tenants will be protected, and will be sub-tenants of the ground landlord; they will be no worse off and no better off than they are at present, except that their direct landlord will be the ground landlord and not the ground lessee. I cannot believe that hon. Members opposite intend to protect the ground lessee who has been living in the room, whose home it has never been, who all the time has only been collecting rack rents, and who will be given the benefit of this not very large financial advantage for the next two years instead of the ground landlord, or, in the case I cited, the ground landlady.

Mr. Powell: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not believe that a great deal of argument is needed to carry conviction to both sides of the House that this Amendment is necessary. The principle underlying it and the object behind it have already been conceded by the Government in an Amendment which they very wisely, if I may say so, made in Committee when they inserted what is now Clause 3. Under Clause 3, a tenant who benefits by this Bill may not at any time after the expiry of his original lease assign that lease to another person without thereby losing the benefits of the Bill. It was only right that a person should not be able to cash in, if I may so describe it, upon this uncovenanted benefit of an extra two years if he did not himself, for himself or his family, require the protection of the Bill. It was quite unreasonable that a person whose lease ran out in June of next year should in the July be able to sell a two years' lease which he had been given as a windfall by this Bill.
6.15 p.m.
It is a necessary and logical extension of the principle recognised by the Government in Clause 3 that they should extend the same prohibition backwards to the date when the provisions of the Bill were known. That is to say, it should be impossible for a person, immediately before the date of expiry of his lease, a week

or two weeks before, to assign the lease and to get the value of the extra two years' lease created by the Bill. Let me illustrate what I mean by this example. Suppose, in 1945, a person bought the last six years of a lease, and at the end of last year he was fortunate enough to obtain a licence to build, and, taking a rather rosy view, that his house will be ready for occupation in May. In May, when he moves into that new house he has still in his hands, by virtue of this Bill, a two years' lease, which he can sell and get the value of—a two years' lease for which he did not pay in 1945 and of which he has no need. I submit that that is a situation just as unreasonable as that he should be allowed to assign the lease immediately after the date of expiry.
I suggest that it is only right to insist upon the person who is to benefit from Part I of the Bill having been in residence continuously from the date when the provisions of the Bill were known until the date of the expiry of his old lease when the provisions of the new Clause will take over and come into effect. Therefore, both on the ground of the possible activities of the non-resident lessee, dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend, and on the ground of the resident tenant who is enabled to cash in on an advantage of which he has no personal or family need, it is only just and equitable that this Amendment should be accepted.

The Solicitor-General: This Amendment does not raise any new problem. We have already rather exhaustively discussed the question whether there should be some qualifying period and I do not think I can usefully add to what has already been said upon that topic. As was pointed out, any qualifying period must, of necessity, be arbitrary. However it is fixed, there will be cases that fall on each side of the line, and in drafting this legislation we have to look at the great generality of cases. I suppose there is very little legislation which is not capable of abuse by some persons, and no doubt this legislation will not form an exception to that general rule.
Be that as it may, one has to have regard to the interests of the very large number of persons whose interests will be regulated by the provisions of this Bill. Looking, for example, at legislation such as the rent restriction legislation one


finds that there is no qualifying period of residence, or anything of that sort. It is very likely that the Legislature which put that legislation on the Statute Book had in mind the consideration that any qualifying period must be purely arbitrary.
When this point was raised in the earlier stages of the Bill it was based largely upon the person who purchases the fag-end of a lease. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), pointed out, we have at least met that. We think we have gone as far as we can go in this case. If one looks at the kind of problem we are dealing with, Clause 3 will cover most kinds of speculation which might be encouraged by the provisions of the Bill, and we think that to go further is simply to be purely arbitrary in this matter and to affect adversely a great many very deserving cases. In those circumstances, we feel that it will not improve the Bill to make this change.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had a most astonishing reply from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I am sorry that we should have had such a disappointing one at the same time. It is very difficult to make much progress with this Measure unless some attention is paid to the arguments advanced. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not sought to meet the argument which has great weight attached to it. In so far as he has advanced any argument against it, his argument, as I hope I shall show, is completely unsound.
Let us go back to what this Bill was primarily intended to deal with. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be in agreement when I say that the real intention of the Bill was to give protection to those who had for many years been residing in particular premises and whose leases of tenancies were expiring—to give them protection and to secure that they were not evicted or held up to ransom at this time of acute housing shortage for which the party opposite are so largely responsible. That was the object of the Measure.
The Leasehold Reform Committee's majority Report, with a view to ensuring that that category of long-standing tenants should benefit and not the speculators in

"fag-ends"—the people who were trying to get high rents out of sub-tenants—recommended that no one should qualify for protection unless he was in occupation for a period of three years before the law was altered. On the Committee stage, we moved an Amendment in accordance with that majority recommendation, and we were defeated. We are not moving it again. The Amendment which we are moving today is quite a different one. It is to ensure that, while allowing all those in occupation up to the date of the publication of the Bill to benefit under the Bill, they must have been in occupation on and since 20th November, the date of publication, for them to qualify for the protection accorded.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that this point had been met by Clause 3, but that Clause applies only to a sub-letting of the whole of the residential accommodation or to an assignment after the date of the expiry of the lease. Clause 3 does not deal with the point that we are making now. Really, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is being singularly ingenuous in seeking to convince us that it does. The case which we are trying to present is the case where the intelligent speculator, the intelligent ground lessee, who has perhaps let the whole of his premises reads this Bill and realises what are the advantages which he can get by turning out a sub-tenant and going to live in the premises himself in one room, thereby getting further rent for a further period of two years from those sub-tenants.
We say that on and since 20th November we will exclude that particular individual but without affecting the subtenants, and by excluding him discourage other ground lessees from doing the same thing. It will also exclude all those who are speculating and protect all those who have read and not understood the provisions of the Bill. When it comes to someone trying to deal with the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), I think that, having regard to his last speech, he is certainly in need of protection and he ought to support us on this matter to ensure that people who are not well acquainted with the terms of this Bill have no advantage taken of them by those who have read and understood it.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he will give further


consideration to this question. This is not an Amendment which can in any sense be described as a wrecking Amendment or as one which is diminishing the value of the Bill. All that it is seeking to do is to prevent the Bill from being abused, and it is nonsense to advance the argument that any qualifying period is purely arbitrary.
It is quite clear, in my submission, that if we take the date of the publication of this Bill it is a very sound date to take, and one which is by no means infrequently taken. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, while he may talk easily about the interest of the great majority, it is not to the interest of the great majority of the people of this country that this Bill should become the vehicle for abuse and exploitation, and if these loopholes in it are not stopped up, the Bill will become as unpopular as the Socialist Town and Country Planning Act is at the present time.
We press the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon this matter. He must improve the Bill by stopping up this loophole, and by doing so he will not be excluding a single one of the category of tenants whom this Bill is intended to benefit. He must agree that that is so. I am sure that he realises it is so, and I press him very strongly upon this point, because in my belief, unless this Amendment is accepted, we shall have considerable abuse of this Measure, and one does not want to see a bad Measure working worse than it need do.

Mr. Higgs: There is one point upon which my right hon. and learned Friend has not pitched his argument quite high enough. We are discussing on this Amendment who is to get the benefits of the Bill in the case where there is somebody between the ground landlord and the occupant. Is the occupant to have the benefit of the Bill, or is he to be put in the position that some intermediate landlord can push him out owing to his not being protected by the Rent Acts because the landlord has established himself in the house before the lease expired and himself gets the benefit of the Bill?
I wonder, in these circumstances, whom hon. Gentlemen opposite are seeking to protect? Are they seeking to protect the person living in the property

now, or who was living in it when this Measure was introduced, or someone who comes along afterwards—the intermediate landlord or the speculative purchaser, if he can find a lease which is for sale?
The point which I make is that the incentive to that speculative purchaser is probably not just the rent for two years. What is the real incentive to the speculator or to the intermediate lessor who is so far not living in the property? The inducement of the lease in front of him is not just to continue to collect the rack rent and to pay out only the ground rent for the remainder of the two years which this Bill covers, but possibly to go on doing that for a very much longer period—perhaps even ad infinitum.
I suggest that there is a very real risk in cases where there is somebody who is in a position of being able to say, "I can turn out the occupants because I am their superior and they are not protected by the Rent Acts because this is leasehold property, and if I turn them out I can make a profit for myself not only to 1953 but to 1953 plus the probability of such further period as the permanent legislation may give. I suggest that, since my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) has quoted a case where an intermediate landlord has discovered this loophole in the Bill, the Amendment should commend itself to the Government. It can keep out no one whom they intend to protect, although it can keep out the sort of people whom we do not often find receiving enthusiastic support from Members opposite.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Foster: It is to be regretted that the Solicitor-General wants to protect a man who acts in this way. Let me give an instance of how a man can act. He finds a number of ground leases, in the sense in which this Bill defines them, of over 21 years which are going to expire, and he gets hold of a man of straw. He buys the end of the ground lease and puts in the man of straw in part of the house, and he does this in mixed accommodation—flats, and so on. If he finds enough of these properties he may make an enormous amount of money, because the ground landlord will not be able to get his reversion as the man will have gone in within the period provided by the Bill.
If the Amendment is accepted, it will stop the man who can take advantage of this gap. The Amendment will not exclude anyone whom it is intended to protect. There was the Attorney-General's argument against the Amendment on the Committee stage on the three-year period. The argument there was that persons might have paid a premium for an assignment of the tail end of the ground lease genuinely intending to go there for residential purposes, and that it might be hard if they were turned out at the end of the ground lease. The only people who will be hit by this Amendment are those who have taken advantage of this position and have bought or had assigned to them the tail end of a ground lease in order to get the extension of two years.
Hon. Members must not think the sums concerned will necessarily be small. They can be very big indeed. Owing to the effect of the Bill, the occupation of a proportion of the premises gives protection to the whole of the premises. Suppose that Park West were on a ground lease and the ground lease were expiring within the period in this Bill. It would be possible for someone to get assigned the tail end of the lease, to instal himself in one of the flats, and then to get the extension of two years. The bigger the property the more valuable is the reversion. Some can go into hundreds of thousands of pounds. There could be a yearly

income of £60,000 to £80,000 a year. That is an extreme case, but there are cases up and down the line.

The speculator who is astute and is prepared to get hold of a man of straw so that he will not be liable at the end of the period when permanent legislation is brought into force will be able to exploit the community. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to be interested in this. They do not seem to think that it is a wrong thing. The reason is that they are determined not to have the Bill amended. But I appeal to them to realise that they must be wrong. If a speculator is given an obvious loophole, then the Bill should be altered.

Mr. Molson: I appeal to the Solicitor-General to answer the point put to him since his speech. The main argument he advanced was that the benefits of the Bill should apply to those whom, from the date when the Bill was published, it was his desire to include. He has not told us which category of people in his opinion are meritorious. Will he tell us why he is resisting this Amendment and what category of persons he desires to protect?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 177.

Division No. 70.]
AYES
[6.35 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Callaghan, L. J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Adams, H. R.
Carmichael, J.
Ewart, R.


Albu, A. H.
Champion, A. J
Fernyhough, E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Clunie, J.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Cocks, F. S.
Finch, H. J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Coldrick, W
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Awbery, S. S.
Collick, P.
Forman, J. C.


Ayles, W. H.
Cook, T. F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bartley, P.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Gibson, C. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gilzean, A.


Benson, G.
Crosland, C.A R
Glanville, James (Consett)


Beswick, F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gooch, E. G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Daines, P.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bing, G. H. C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Grenfell, D. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Grey, C. F.


Boardman, H
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Booth, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)


Bottomley, A. G
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)


Bowden, H. W.
de Freitas, G.
Hamilton, W. W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Deer, G.
Hardman, D. R


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Delargy, H. J.
Hardy, E. A.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Dodds, N. N.
Hargreaves, A


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Donnelly, D.
Harrison, J.


Broughton, Dr. A D. D.
Driberg, T. E. N
Hayman, F. H.


Brown, George (Belper)
Dye, S.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hobson, C. R.


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holman, P.


Burton, Miss E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Houghton, D.




Hubbard, T.
Morley, R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Moyle, A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Mullay, F. W.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Janner, B.
Nally, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jay, D. P. T.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jenkins, R. H
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oliver, G. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Timmons, J.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pannell, T. C.
Tomney, F.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pargiter, G. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.


Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Pearson, A.
Vernon, W. F.


Keenan, W.
Peart, T. F.
Viant, S. P.


Kenyon, C.
Popplewell, E.
Wallace, H. W.


Kinley, J.
Porter, G.
Weitzman, D.


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rees, Mrs. D.
West, D. G.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Logan, D. G.
Richards, R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Robens, A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


MacColl, J. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McGhee, H. G.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wigg, G.


McInnes, J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, W.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Royle, C.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Manuel, A. C.
Simmons, C. J.
Wise, F. J.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Slater, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Messer, F.
Snow, J. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Middleton, Mrs. L-
Sorensen. R. W.
Yates, V. F.


Moeran, E. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank



Monslow, W.
Sparks, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moody, A. S.
Steele, T.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cundiff, F. W.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
de Chair, Somerset
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Deedes, W. F.
Hurd, A. R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Digby, S. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D
Hutchison, Colonel James


Banks, Col. C.
Drayson, G. B.
Jeffreys, General Sir George


Beamish, Major Tufton
Drewe, C.
Jennings, R.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Birch, Nigel
Eccles, D. M.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bishop, F. P.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Black, C. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Foster, John
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Low, A. R. W.


Braine, B. R.
Gage, C. H.
McCallum, Major D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
McKibbin, A.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Gates, Mai. E. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maclay, Hon. John


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grimond, J.
MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Butcher, H. W.
Harden, J. R. E.
Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Harvey, Air Codre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Heald, Lionel
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Heath, Edward
Maudling R.


Clyde, J. L.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mellor, Sir John


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Molson, A. H. E.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nabarro, G.


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Harmar


Cranborne, Viscount
Hope, Lord John
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Odey, G. W.







O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Scott, Donald
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian ('Hendon, N.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Tilney, John


Osborne, C.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Turner, H. F. L.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Turton, R. H.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Snadden, W. McN
Vane, W. M. F.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Soames, Capt. C.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Pickthorn, K.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Powell, J. Enoch
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Watkinson, H.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Watt, Sir George Harvie


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Raikes, H. V.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Redmayne, M.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Storey, S.
Wills, G.


Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wood, Hon. R.


Roper, Sir Harold
Summers, G. S.



Ropner, Col. L.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Russell, R. S.
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)
Mr. Studholme and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.


Bill read the Third time, and passed. [King's Consent on behalf of the Crown signified.]

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any premises to which Part II of this Act applies.
This is the first of two Amendments to line 18, and I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we deal separately with them, because they deal with different points. We moved a similar Amendment on the Committee stage to try to ensure some clarity and eliminate some uncertainty in the Bill as to its effect. From the speeches made on Second Reading from the Government Front Bench, from a perusal of the Bill itself, and from what was said in the Gracious Speech, we understood that the object was two-fold—to provide some measure of protection, first, for those holding residential property on ground leases, and secondly, for those who occupy shops.
It is quite clear under the Bill that shop and living accommodation clearly comes within the purview of Part II. I pointed out on the Committee stage that it was possible for a tenancy of a dwelling and of a shop to come under Part I and I indicated that that was likely to cause confusion and uncertainty. The Attorney-General said that he would like to have an opportunity of considering the matter before the Report stage, and, in view of that, naturally we withdrew the Amendment. Since that date the right hon. and learned Gentleman has very kindly sent me a letter expressing his view with regard to that particular point. I think its contents are of such importance in explaining the operation of this Bill that they should be made public, and by

tabling this Amendment we have enabled the Government to do so. I do not want to prejudice the explanation that the Solicitor-General will give, but as on the Report stage one can speak only once without obtaining the leave of the House, I will, if I may, comment shortly upon the answer that the Attorney-General has given me.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that the tenancy of a dwelling house and a shop could come under either part of the Bill. Indeed, some tenancies can come under both parts. If a tenancy is for over 21 years, there will, of course, be automatic extension for two years at the same rent. If the tenancy is less than 21 years and expires within the next two years, Part II applies, in which case the tenant can get an extension on terms settled by the county court. A very important step, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made clear to me in his letter, was that if during the period of automatic extension a landlord gives notice, on the ground of assignment or sub-letting under Clause 3, then in spite of that the tenant will be enabled, although he has assigned or sub-let the whole of the accommodation, to make an application which will bring him within Part II.
It was not apparent to me when I moved the Amendment on the Committee stage that not only could one particular property come both within Part I and Part II of the Bill, but also that Clause 3 would be used in relation to a tenancy under Part I, when the tenant of the premises, under a lease for over 21 years, was given notice to quit on the ground that he had assigned the whole of his interest or sub-let the whole of the residential accommodation. As I understand it,


from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's letter to me, that is the present position under the Bill.
Indeed, the Solicitor-General, earlier this afternoon, made it clear—it was not made clear in the Second Reading debate—that it is the intention to deal with shops both under Part I and Part II. It seems to me that whatever one may say for or against the Bill, the present position is likely to create all kinds of anomalies. There may be two adjoining shops or two shops in the same neighbourhood, one with a lease expiring in the next two years which may have its rent increased after the man has gone to the county court. The other one, a neighbouring shop, it may be of a competitor and perhaps occupying comparable premises, will have an automatic extension for two years with no increase in rent. As between shops, irrespective of landlords and of competing shopkeepers, that does not appear to be logical or fair.
I call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman particularly to this point and to the uncertainty which arises, in view of the present position under the Bill, as to whether notice under Part I, Clause 3, will result in possession being given or obtained, and which makes it impossible to plan ahead. I am not at all sure in relation to this Measure, which is only supposed to operate for two years, that there is not a good deal to be said for confining Part I to dwellings and properties let for rent under one long-term lease, and confining Part II to shops with living accommodation let with the shop. That would avoid all overlapping. It would certainly make it much easier for both landlord and tenant, whether of residential property or of shops, to understand the position, it would lead to a reduction of litigation—not always to be discouraged—and I am sure that it would lead to the Bill being easier to operate.
I hope that I have not taken unduly long in dealing with this point. We put the Amendment forward in the belief that it will improve the Bill, although it may cause the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) to rise to his feet and misrepresent once more the action that we are taking. I am sure that if he understands what I have been saying, he will appreciate the error of his ways.

Mr. Hay: I beg to second the Amendment.
The further we go with this Bill the worse it seems to get. We have now an entirely new situation, which I think none of us contemplated either on the Second Reading or on the Committee stage. We now have the letter which has passed between the Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in which an entirely new construction is placed upon Parts I and II, as they apply to mixed properties. I have not had the opportunity of reading or of hearing the contents of the letter, but it fills me with amazement to think that the Attorney-General, who appeared very conciliatory on the Committee stage when this point was raised, should say that, so far as the Government are concerned, they are prepared to give a tenant, who may not be a deserving tenant, two bites at the cherry.
It seems a very odd situation. It is something which ought to have been disclosed to the House at a much earlier stage. I strongly support the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about it. If that is to be the situation, we are surely giving an altogether unjust advantage to a tenant. In spite of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), and other hon. Members, we on this side of the House are just as much concerned about the position of tenants as of landlords. We have said that there should be a just and equitable balance between the two. We do not like the Bill and the way in which it proposes to do this job, and if it can be improved we seek to improve it.

The Solicitor-General: I gather that the object of moving the Amendment is to invite the Government to explain the effect of the Bill in certain of its aspects. I am sorry if it has not been clear before, but we certainly thought that in this respect the Bill was perfectly clear. The Attorney-General in his letter to the hon. and learned Member has made clear what the effect of it is. Perhaps I might just quote the relevant part of the letter so that it may go publicly on record. It is this:
Part II only operates where the tenancy is due to come to an end within the period of two years, beginning with the commencement


of the Act. If the tenancy is affected by Part I at all, that is, if it was granted by a long lease of mixed residential and shop property, it will be extended automatically by Part I and will not come to an end within the two-year period, so that Part II will have no application.
I should have thought, and I would urge upon the House, that that was the clear effect of the Bill. You first look at Part I. When you contemplate the premises in question you ask: "Do they comply with the requirements of Part I?" Axe they, in other words, held on a long lease? Is the tenant, or a member of his family, living in them or part of them? If the answer to these questions is "yes," Part I is applicable, with the result that the lease is extended for two years at the same rent.
If the lease is extended for two years it follows automatically and axiomatically, that Part II cannot apply to it, for the very reason that Part II can come into application only when the tenancy comes to an end within the period of two years beginning with the commencement of the Act and would come to an end by efflux-ion of time or by the expiration of a notice to quit. Ex concesso, if the tenancy has already been extended for two years under Part I, it obviously cannot come to an end within those two years so as to bring into operation these words which I have just cited from Clause 10, in Part II. Therefore; it is perfectly clear that if the premises fall within Part I, Part II cannot apply to them.
I gather that that brings about a result which in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite is undesirable and which somehow shocks them. I really do not see why. Suppose the landlord gives notice under Clause 3 on the ground that there has been a sub-tenancy or an assignment. What happens? Part I ceases to apply and the tenancy comes to an end. Then you look to see what Part II does. The new tenant—not the old tenant, if I may take the case of a sub-tenancy—can then apply under Part II. He is then given a tenancy.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says "new tenant," is that really right? The new tenant who comes in, the one to whom the sub-tenancy or assignment is made, has not held under a lease which expires within two years.

The Solicitor-General: I really am sure about this point. What happens is that the long lease is prolonged under Part I. It then comes to an end, because the lessee has sub-let—to take a simple case—within the two-year period, with the result that the landlord obtains the right to terminate the tenancy under Clause 3. The subtenancy having taken place, obviously a new tenant is in occupation. There is a new tenant.
7.0 p.m.
The new tenant has been brought on to the scene by virtue of the fact that there is a sub-tenancy. There we have a case which then falls within Part II, because it is a case of shop premises, the tenancy in regard to which comes to an end within the relevant two years. The result of that is that the tenant of those shop premises can, under Clause 12, if the county court judge thinks it appropriate in all the circumstances to give him a new tenancy, obtain a fresh tenancy for a period not exceeding a year: but, of course, he does not get the new tenancy at anything like the original ground rent; he gets it at a reasonable rent, whatever a reasonable rent is.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is very important, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind my putting a point to him to get it clear. Take sub-letting; on that ground the original tenant is given notice to quit, and the landlord obtains possession. It may be that a sub-tenant has gone into occupation under the sub-lease but that subtenant will not be the tenant of the landlord in consequence of that. That is one point, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with that.
Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the new sub-tenant can claim under Part II. Is that really right? He cannot claim under Part II unless it is a lease expiring within the two years, and he holds no lease of that landlord. He had a tenancy of his landlord who has been ejected from the property because he had no right to sub-let. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the new tenant can claim under Part II but is that really so, because the new tenant will not be holding under a lease expiring within the two years? He will not be holding under any lease.

The Solicitor-General: I really think that I am right. What happens? We get the premises and there is a tenant in them. The tenant then assigns or sublets his tenancy to a new tenant. Let us call the new tenant B and the original tenant A. Tenant B goes into possession by virtue of the assignment or sub-letting of the tenancy by tenant A. Tenant B then finds that the tenancy under which he is holding is determined. He is then the tenant of premises the tenancy of which has been brought to an end by notice to quite being given by the landlord within two years.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: But he will not have any notice from the landlord.

The Solicitor-General: He will not have that, but it will be a case of a tenancy coming to an end by virtue of a notice to quit by the landlord. [HON. MEMBERS: "But not his landlord."] Nevertheless it will be brought to an end; he will stand in the same shoes as the original tenant who sub-let to him and the tenancy will come to an end. That is the effect of the Bill. That is rather a by-product of the original proposition which I was advancing, which was that the effect of the Bill is that Part II applies only in the case where Part I no longer has any application.

Mr. Higgs: The new interpretation of the Clause which has been given to us has come as something of a surprise. It seems to have come as something of a surprise to the Attorney-General when he looked into the matter after what was said on the Committee stage. It is surprising that the Bill should have got as far as this without people realising quite what happens. From the beginning I have been concerned about the fact that properties could apparently come within both Part I and Part II of the Bill, and it seems that they can still do so. A tenant can not only have the pick of Part I or Part II but, if he is sufficiently ingenious, he can have first the whole of the benefit of Part I and then the whole of the benefit of Part II, one after the other, if his property is mixed.
It is only by looking into these rather curious aspects that we are able to discover where the Bill takes us. If I understood the Solicitor-General aright, this is what happens. When a tenant comes to the end of his lease of a mixed property,

Part I will cover him and carry him until the day in 1953 when the Bill runs out. But under Clause 4, if he is careful, he can bring the tenancy to an end on the 364th day of the second year and can then say that his tenancy has come to an end within the period of two years, and toddle off to the county court to get an extension of a further 12 months.
I do not know whether I am right or whether there is an answer to the instance I have cited. It may be that the Solicitor-General has an answer. But if these points keep cropping up within ten minutes of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), reading out the new interpretation of the Bill, how many more such situations may arise? Surely it would be wise to say that no property should come within both Parts of the Bill, which is all we are seeking to say. As we can do no harm to anybody by saying so, why not let us do so?

The Solicitor-General: I should like to deal with that point. In the case in which a tenant gives notice under Clause 4, the requisite requirements of Clause 10 would not operate because it would not be a case of a tenancy which:
…would…come to an end by effluxion of time or by the expiration of a notice to quit given by the landlord.…
It would be a case of a notice given by the tenant, so that in a case of that sort there would be no right on the part of the tenant.
I should like to correct one thing which I said in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I think I was mistaken about it. What I said was perfectly correct in the case of an assignee but not in the case of a sub-tenant. The assignee would be a person whose tenancy is determined within the meaning of Clause 10 by a notice to quit given by the landlord, that notice to quit being given under the powers conferred on the landlord by Clause 3. The sub-tenant, however, would not have a right under Clause 10 because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly pointed out, it would not be a case of his getting a notice to quit from his landlord. Therefore, the position would be that the assignee would have a right and that the sub-tenant would not.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I should like to say that the House is grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for throwing light upon the darkness created by the obscurities in the Bill. We cannot usefully pursue the matter any further today. However, even now I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the point that we have put foward and, if possible, try to prevent the possibility of the Bill leading to protracted litigation, which only benefits a small section of the community.

Mr. J. Foster: If the Solicitor-General is to consider this matter, perhaps he will also consider a point which I have to make. Let us assume a continued tenancy of mixed premises where the tenant leases part of the living accommodation. I am envisaging a situation where the tenant of mixed premises—a shop and living accommodation—sub-lets part of the living accommodation and then the landlord gives him notice under Clause 3. Is not that a case where the tenant, being an occupier of a shop under Part II, would be entitled to go to the county court and ask for a year's extension? I think that must be so.

The Solicitor-General: The Solicitor-General indicated assent.

Mr. Foster: I see that prima facie the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it is right, but is not that a situation which should be cured? It is contrary to the views of the Attorney-General stated in his letter, because we have the position that the tenant of this mixed accommodation sub-lets under his new continued tenancy. The intention of the Bill is that the landlord should be able to determine his tenancy once and for all, yet, owing to the way it is drafted, the tenant pops into Part II, says, "I am the occupier of a shop; I have been given notice; therefore, I want a year's extension." I am sure the House will allow the Solicitor-General to answer that problem.

The Solicitor-General: May I deal with that, with the leave of the House? In the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman envisages, the position would be that if the tenant finds that he comes within Part II and applies for a fresh year's tenancy of the mixed premises in question, of course he does not have the

advantage of getting it at the low rent he was previously paying. Indeed the county court judge, in considering his application, will take into account these circumstances and may refuse the tenancy altogether. Anyhow, if it is decided that the tenant should have an extended tenancy, he has to pay the new rent which is reasonable in the circumstances. So I do not really think that the objection felt by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Clause is well founded. It acts perfectly equitably in the circumstances.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where the interest of the landlord of a dwelling-house to which this section applies is determined (whether by effluxion of time, act of the parties, or for any other reason) before the expiration of the two years after the commencement of this Act, the tenant who retains possession by virtue of this section shall be deemed for the purposes of and subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act to become the tenant on the terms of his previous tenancy of the landlord who would thereupon but for the provisions of this Part of this Act have become entitled to possession of the dwelling-house.
This is a similar Amendment to the one tabled in the Committee stage which the Attorney-General said he would look at. We put this Amendment down again with the object of clarifying the Bill, and with the intention of embodying in one short proviso the object of the complicated Clause 5—Clause 7 as it now is—and what was Clause 15 and is now Clause 17.
If hon. Members will look at those two Clauses they will see that they are not only extremely long and complicated, but beyond the comprehension of most people without devoting many hours of study to them. I think I am right in saying that the object of those two Clauses is to secure that as each intermediate lease expires, the reversioner will become the landlord of the tenant under the lease for 21 years. So, if the intervening lease drops out, the tenant in occupation automatically becomes the tenant of the landlord next higher up the chain.
Although the wording of this proviso may not fit exactly into the drafting of the Bill, it shows a way in which that purpose could be effected much more


simply and much more clearly. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would look at this point, I have not had the advantage of a letter from him. I want to make it clear that I make no complaint about that. However, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to tell us that, having looked at it, he will be able, later, to adopt something on the lines of this Amendment with a view to shortening and clarifying an already complicated Bill.

Mr. Powell: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: We considered this Amendment, but we cannot see our way to accept it. Although it was put down with the laudable object of trying to compress Clause 7, it contains effects which are quite fatal. I will indicate only one of them, although there are five or six. The first is rather a technical point. It refers to "a dwelling-house to which this section applies.…" That must mean a dwelling-house which is the subject of a ground lease extended by Clause 1. But it is a condition for extension by that Clause that the ground lessee or his family should be in occupation of the premises or part of them. The people one is trying to protect in Clause 7 are sub-lessees of the ground lessee. Therefore, the proviso leaves out the very people Clause 7 is trying to protect.
No doubt all those defects I have referred to could be remedied by drafting, but if we tried to do that we should have a Clause of exactly the same length as Clause 7. Therefore, although we are obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his endeavours to shorten and simplify the Bill, we feel that this effort has not succeeded.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2.—(PROVISION WHERE TENANT HOLDING OVER AFTER EXPIRY OF LONG TENANCY.)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, after "Act," to insert:
but not before the twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty.
Two difficulties were felt over this Clause in Committee. The first was that its provisions might have the quite unforeseen and undesirable effect that where

a tenancy expiring before the commencement of this Act had been prolonged, not at a higher rent but in consideration of a premium or other payment, that premium would become repayable and the old tenancy would be reinstated by the provisions of this Clause. That difficulty has been removed by the proviso to subsection (4) which was inserted in Committee and which it may be that the House will presently reinsert in the Bill in a different place and form.
The second difficulty which was felt still remains, and this Amendment aims at removing it. As the Clause stands, any person who is in occupation in continuation of a tenancy before the commencement of the Act is protected both before the commencement and after the commencement by Clause 5 from a notice to quit. Under the fourth paragraph of the First Schedule, even where an order for dispossession has been made, if it has not been acted upon, then it is not put into effect. It seemed to many of us that this was unreasonable where the expiring tenancy had come to an end before the provisions of this Bill were known.
It seemed to us that from the time when the Bill was published it was reasonable that tenancies expiring after that day, though before the commencement of the Act, should be continued to the commencement of the Act, and that a tenant whose tenancy expired during that period should not be liable to the effects of a notice to quit. As the Clause stands however, provided the former tenant managed to remain in occupation, by hook or by crook, up to the date when the Bill was published, however long beforehand his tenancy might have come to an end, he is still protected.
This resulted in the inequitable situation that the tenant of an expired lease who had managed to hang on got the advantage of Part I of the Bill, whereas had he acted in a reasonable and decent manner and recognised that his rights in the property were at an end, he got no advantage. It would seem, therefore, that this protection ought only to be given from the time when the Bill, and the intentions of the Government expressed in it, became public property, and that the date of continuation should not be pushed further back than 20th November,


which is the day on which the Bill was published.

Mr. Black: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is little that I desire to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). The Clause is an example of retrospective legislation, and without wishing in any way to detain the House by entering into a general discussion on that subject, may I say this is a case of unlimited retrospection. What the Amendment seeks to do is to substitute limited retrospection for absolutely unlimited retrospection.
My hon. Friend has made clear the apprehensions which many of us feel about the results of the Clause if the Amendment is not accepted. I do not want to detain the House by going over the ground which he has already adequately covered, but I draw attention to the fact that when this matter was under consideration at an earlier stage, the Attorney-General, while, I think, not agreeing with the view we then expressed about the possible results of the Clause, undertook to look into this matter again to consider whether there was not a great deal of substance in the apprehensions which we felt and which, on that occasion, we voiced.
I hope that the Government will agree to accept this very reasonable Amendment, which, after all, only takes out of the scope of the Clause leases coming to an end at a date earlier than the first publication of the Bill. It seems to us to be eminently reasonable to substitute this limited degree of retrospection for the absolutely unlimited retrospection which is embodied in the Clause in its existing form.

The Solicitor-General: When we considered the same kind of point during our discussion on the Clause in Committee I indicated what was the object of making this, as it were, an unlimited retrospective Clause. The reasons are these. Once one accepts—as hon. Members opposite do accept, in that their own Amendment has a retrospective effect—that the Clause should have retrospective operation, there is more reason to make it apply to a tenancy which expired long ago than there is to make it apply to one which expired only shortly

before the commencement of the Measure. Perhaps I may indicate the reasons for this, as I indicated them earlier in our debate.
Supposing the tenancy of a long lease has expired—say, some considerable time ago—and the ex-tenant of the long lease has remained on, either as a new tenant or holding over at the same rent, then the longer he has been in the premises in that situation—that is, under a new tenancy at the same rent, or holding over without any new tenancy having been formally entered into—the more reason is there, we think, for the tenant to have the relief which the Clause gives him.
Therefore, the attempt to limit the retrospective operation of the Clause, once one accepts that it must be retrospective to some extent, is greatly cutting down its effect and cutting out from its scope those very tenants who have the strongest claim. It would be leaving in the tenants who can only point to a short period of holding under the new conditions, under the substituted tenancy or holding over, but it would be cutting out from the protection which the Bill confers all those tenants who may have been in occupation for a considerable time under the terms of the new tenancy on the same rent. Therefore, we cannot help thinking that it would be a great mistake to limit the retrospective operation of the Clause, as the Amendment seeks to do. These are the reasons which I deployed earlier.
Of course, we think over all these problems which are raised in the course of discussion, but the more we think over this one, the more we feel confident we are right in saying that once the Clause is retrospective at all, once the retrospective relief is given, then it certainly should include tenants who can say of themselves that they have been in occupation of the premises, or part of them, for a long time back, their long leases having expired some considerable time before the publication of the Bill. For these reasons, I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Attorney-General said during the Committee stage:
We thought that unless we took the date of the introduction of the Bill we could not find any earlier arbitrary date which would do justice between the parties. We must accept


retrospection in the unusual circumstances of this Bill, and it seemed to us better not to put any term to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 943–4.]
That is a rather weak argument. We accept retrospection down to the date of the introduction of the Bill, but neither the Attorney-General nor the Solicitor-General has advanced any argument for going further back than that. It is very easy to talk about tenants holding over for a long time, and that the longer they hold over the more they are entitled to protection. In the vast majority of cases—I hesitate to say all, because obviously one cannot find out—where there has been any lengthy continuance of occupation by the tenant after the lease had expired, it has been by virtue of an implied or express agreement with the landlord. If that has happened, there is no reason to assume that that continued occupation will in any way be terminated.
One evil attaching to unlimited retrospection is that it would put a premium upon the bad tenant, for whom there are no merits but who is persisting, in spite of attempts made to dispossess him, in retaining occupation of the property. In these days of housing shortage one does not like the idea of anyone being deprived of property, but, at the same time one has to consider the many people who are seeking accommodation. Although one can use the argument about the longer the tenant has been in occupation, the greater the protection he should have, no argument has so far been advanced for giving the Clause an unlimited retrospective effect, and we feel that it should be limited in its retrospective effect to the date of the introduction of the Bill.
I can only conclude by hoping—it may be a faint hope, but I hope, nevertheless—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give further consideration to this matter, because I am sure he dislikes as much as I do retrospective legislation in principle, and we are certainly getting far too much of it from the present Government.

Amendment negatived.

7.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "in continuation of the tenancy."
This is a drafting Amendment which paves the way for the next Amendment

on the Order Paper, which is to collect in two new paragraphs the various requirements which have to be complied with for Clause 2 to operate. If the proposed new paragraphs are included, these words "in continuation of the tenancy" are no longer necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 13, at end, insert:
and
(c) at all times during the period mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph at which any such person was living in the property or the part thereof in question he was living there either not in right of any tenancy or agreement or in right of a tenancy or agreement (whether express or implied) which—

(i) was at a rent, or in consideration of a payment in the nature of rent, of the like amount as the rent payable immediately before the date of continuation,
(ii) was not granted, made or renewed for a consideration which included the payment of a premium or of a sum in the nature of a premium, and
(iii) was such as to expire, or to be capable of being terminated by notice to quit, at a time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) earlier than the expiration of two years after the commencement of this Act, and

(d) if immediately before the date of continuation the tenant or a member of his family was in right of the tenancy living in part only of the property, then at no time during the period mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection was there in possession of some other part of the property any person not being the former tenant or a person claiming under him or a person holding over after the coming to an end of a sub-tenancy created (immediately or derivatively) out of the tenancy.

In line 25, leave out subsection (4).—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 3.—(POWER OF LANDLORD TO DETERMINE CONTINUED TENANCY IN EVENT OF ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLETTING.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after "Act" to insert:
and not being an assignment in pursuance of a requirement imposed by the landlord.
This is an Amendment which I move in order to enable effect to be given to a proposal made by an hon. Friend on the Committee stage that, in the event of a tenant keeping a brothel, or using premises for immoral purposes, certain provisions of Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act should nevertheless


remain in operation. Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912, gives the landlord the right, where the occupier has been convicted of knowingly allowing the premises to be used as a brothel, either to require an assignment of the tenancy to some person approved by the landlord, or, if the assignment does not take place within three months, to terminate the tenancy.
If the landlord gives notice that he requires the assignment to be made to a new tenant of whom he approves, it obviously is not reasonable that he should also have the right to determine the tenancy because of that assignment. As Clause 3 (1, a) at present reads it would give the right to terminate the tenancy in the event of a new assignee of whom the landlord approved coming into the property. Obviously that would be most unjust to the new assignee. Inasmuch as Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912, will still be operative and is not interfered with by the provisions of this Bill, we think it desirable that assignments at the direction of the landlord acting under his rights under Section 5 of the 1912 Act should not give a right to a landlord to terminate the lease as a whole.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "every," and insert "the whole or any."
If we look at the two paragraphs of this subject we see that the landlord may determinate the tenancy in two different circumstances. The first relates to assignment and the second to sub-letting. To produce this power of the landlord to determine the tenancy by assignment it is only necessary that the tenant should have assigned part of the property of which he is the tenant, whereas in the case of sub-letting it is necessary in order to produce that effect that he should have sub-let the whole of the property. This Amendment relates to this difference between the two approaches in respect of assignments and sub-letting. It goes upon the view that in each case it should be sufficient that the tenant has found himself in a position to dispose, whether it be by assignment or sub-letting, of part of the property he occupies to enable the landlord to terminate the tenancy.

The main ground of the Bill is to protect tenants in the occupation of house room which they need for themselves and their families and the Government, to judge from paragraph (a) of the subsection, clearly feel that if a tenant finds himself in a position to do a deal in respect of part of the property and to assign it he ought not to enjoy the protection of this part of the Bill at all. The question is whether that should not also apply to sub-letting. In either case the tenant is obtaining a benefit from house room or a part of the property which he himself no longer requires and he is obtaining, whether in the form of a premium upon assignment, or in the form of rent obtained from the sub-tenant, a benefit at the landlord's expense from the extension of two years which this part of the Bill creates.
Why should there be the difference between the two methods whereby he obtains that advantage, namely, by assignment or by sub-letting? It was argued on behalf of the Government that if sub-letting is placed in the same position as assignment, tenants will not sub-let but will say, "If we cannot get the benefit of the two year's extension by sub-letting we will not sub-let at all" and will continue to occupy the whole of the property and, possibly, housing space for an extra family would be withdrawn.
That is an argument, as far as it goes, but it only reinforces the contention, which has several times been made from this side of the House, that the Government have been wrong in extending protection to property as a whole instead of extending it to the part actually occupied by the tenant. Had they done that there would have been no difficulty arising and no necessity for the distinction to which this Amendment draws attention. It cannot be argued that it is impossible to extend protection to part only of the property held in the tenancy because it is assumed by paragraph (a) that part only can be assigned and if a part can be assigned, the tenant can be confirmed in the occupation of a part. The Amendment draws attention to an anomaly. It draws attention to an anomaly which has been caused by the Government's failure to restrict the Bill to its true and proper purpose, that of protecting a tenant in the occupation of house room which he needs for himself or his family.

Mr. Black: I beg to second the Amendment.
We find it very difficult to understand the reason for the differentiation of treatment between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Taking a practical view of this matter, as distinct from a legalistic view, both assignment and sub-letting are, after all, devices whereby the occupier of the premises, or the owner of the premises, parts with possession, either of a part or of the whole of the premises and it seems to us to be quite inconsistent and indefensible to make this distinction between paragraphs (a) and (b) and to say that an assignment of part only of the premises is to entitle the landlord to recover possession whereas a sub-letting of part only of the premises is not so to entitle the landlord. We feel that that is a very narrow legal distinction which is not supported by any practical distinction, and that it is a distinction which really cannot be supported.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, dealt with the question of the desirability or otherwise of encouraging sub-letting. I think it will be agreed on both sides of the House that in this period of housing shortage it is desirable that where there are surplus rooms, capable of being occupied, encouragement should be given to making those rooms available to families who are in desperate need of accommodation. My submission is that the Amendment which we are seeking to have incorporated in the Bill is not one which will determine whether surplus rooms are sub-let or not, but will merely determine whether the rooms are to be sub-let by the landlord or by the tenant. Our contention is that surplus rooms will be sub-let in either case, and we can see no justification for giving to the tenant the uncovenanted benefit of receiving a possibly high rent which he may be tempted to charge by sub-letting a part of the premises.
On the grounds of good estate management it is much better that letting and sub-letting should be undertaken by the owner of the premises rather than by a tenant. A tenant who sub-lets will almost certainly appropriate to himself in full the rent he receives on the sub-letting. Owing to his limited interest in the property he is not likely to plough back the rent or any substantial part of it in repairs and improvements to the property. Conversely, it is invariably the case that

if the owner of the property is able to undertake the sub-letting he will, having a much greater stake in the property than that of any tenant, have a much greater inducement than would a tenant to plough back a substantial part of the rent he receives each year in maintaining the property in a good state of repair, and in incorporating improvements and up-to-date devices from time to time.
There is the further point that where the tenant sub-lets he almost invariably does so without making the necessary structural alterations to the premises. He does not put in a separate kitchen, or a separate bathroom, or anything to make the part sub-let into a self-contained flat or maisonette. When the landlord is able to deal with the matter he will, in view of his long-term interest in the investment, almost always carry out improvements such as putting in a separate kitchen and bathroom and separate meters for services for the tenant, and the tenant who gets the benefit of the sub-letting thereby gets very much better premises from the landlord than he would get in the case of subletting by another tenant.

7.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: Both the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) have really been re-arguing the case about Clause 1. That Clause applies to premises, even if the tenant lives only in part of them. The House has, by its vote, already indicated that it approves of Clause 1 as drafted, so it is too late to go back and argue that matter now.
One has to approach this Amendment on the basis that Clause 1 gives protection both in regard to that part of the tenancy which the tenant occupies and in respect of the part which he may not occupy. Supposing one starts from that premise, I understand both hon. Members to accept the view that the tenant should, if he has surplus accommodation, be in a position to sub-let it. Present housing conditions make that desirable. What we have done in the Bill is to give the tenant the possibility of sub-letting if he has spare accommodation. It is said, "You make an illogical distinction between sub-letting and assigning a part." During our discussion of the Bill in the Committee stage, I indicated the reason for the difference. Unless we make a partial


assignment a ground for a landlord giving notice under Clause 3 we will make it very easy for the tenant to evade this provision of the Measure, because he can sub-let a part and assign the remainder, thereby being in possession of no part himself but, nevertheless, enjoying the advantages which Part I of the Bill gives him.
It is for that reason that we found, apparently rather illogically at first sight, that it was necessary to make a distinction between sub-letting a part and assigning a part. We said that assigning a part would give the right to the landlord to determine the lease, but we did not want to say the same in regard to the subletting of a part, because we thought that the public interest required—and this is accepted—that the tenant should be able to sub-let a portion of the premises which he does not require for his own accommodation. Therefore, we have drafted the Clause in its present form. If we accepted the Amendment it would be going counter to what is accepted on all sides as being desirable by preventing the tenant from sub-letting part of the premises. For those reasons I hope that the House will agree that this proposed change should not be made, and that the Clause should remain as drafted.

Mr. Hay: The Solicitor-General has approached the problem of this Amendment from one aspect, but I do not think he has done justice to the argument which we have put forward. We cannot see the sense, logic or justice of allowing a tenant who is given the benefit of Part I of the Bill to make an unjustifiable profit at the expense of his landlord. That is the premise from which we start. The Solicitor-General starts from a different viewpoint.
We say that if the landlord is to be given the right to bring the whole tenancy to an end if the tenant assigns a part of the premises we cannot see the sense of permitting the tenant to retain, for example, one room in the premises and to sub-let the remainder, possibly, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, at an exorbitant or very high rent. There does not seem to me to be any justification for that. The whole case and argument for this Bill has proceeded on the basis that here is a class of person who ought to have some protection. It has been quite openly admitted by the Attorney-

General and others that if that involves a little hardship to the landlord they are not really worried about that. But this provision is going a little too far.
I appreciate the technical argument of the Solicitor-General, but what is being said here is that if a tenant chooses he can retain just one small room in the premises and can make a good profit out of subletting the remainder, while not really living there himself, because there are all sorts of subterfuges and ways round that provision. By doing that he will retain possession for a further two years and will still be in an advantageous position when the permanent legislation comes along, if indeed it does. We do not see that there is any justice in that.
I do not think that the Solicitor-General can be allowed to get away with the argument he advanced to us just now, and I hope that the House will not let him do so. If there are problems of drafting it is up to the Government, whose Bill this is, to provide wording to remedy the position. I ask the Government and hon. Gentlemen sitting behind them whether they really believe that it is right that a tenant—there will not perhaps be many, but there will be some—should have the right and the opportunity of making a profit at the expense of the landlord, when the whole object behind this Bill is to give the sitting tenant the protection which it is said he ought to have.

Mr. Awbery: It would be just as much right for the tenant to do that as it is for the landlord to do it. Landlords do it, and have been doing it for many years.

Mr. Hay: I will not argue the latter part of that contention, because I do not think it is relevant; but if the hon. Member really asks about it, I will point to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) said. If the landlord has the right to get back these rooms in the house he would let them again. So the argument about the housing problem not being improved if the tenant is not allowed to sub-let has nothing whatever to do with the case. The landlord will let just as well as the tenant. In the event of the landlord letting he will plough back in the shape of repairs and improvement to the building—which, no doubt, will need it badly—the money he receives by way of rents.

Mr. Keenan: I have been looking for a landlord like that for a long time.

Mr. Hay: I suggest that that is what will happen in 99 per cent. of the cases. and the hon. Member knows that just as well as I do. I know that hon. Members opposite have to put up a smoke screen about bad landlords because they think it may do them some good in the country, but they cannot get away with it always. That is why I think this Amendment is one which the Government ought to accept. It is one which, in justice and in fairness, they cannot really refuse. I realise that we are rather late in the day in bringing it forward, but there is an opportunity for these matters to be remedied in another place. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman persists today and says he is not prepared to accept the Amendment I do not know what my hon. Friends will do, but I hope that something will be done in another place to clear up this appalling anomaly.

Mr. Awbery: Regarding what the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said about the tenant who lets part of the house at what the hon. Member described as an extortionate rent, is that not being done today by landlords?

Mr. Hay: No.

Mr. Awbery: When a tenant vacates a house now, and the Rent Restrictions Act is removed so far as the empty house is concerned—

Mr. Hay: No, it is not.

Mr. Awbery: —then the landlord charges just what he likes.

Mr. Hay: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House, but if a landlord recovers possession of a house subject to the 1939 Act the rent control is certainly not removed. The hon. Member is 20 years behind the times.

Mr. Awbery: I am talking about exploitation by the landlord.

Mr. Hay: That has gone, too. Amendment negatived.

Clause 5.—(RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANTS.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out from "insured," to "for," in line 36, and to insert:
and that nothing in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection shall apply to the enforcement of any right on the ground that the property or part thereof is being, or has since the commencement of this Act been, used.
The object of this Amendment is to meet a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). The point made by him was that there might be a covenant so framed as to cover an immoral purpose. It might be a covenant against use in a way which constituted a nuisance or something of that sort. My hon. Friend proposed, and we thought it reasonable, that the landlord should be entitled to enforce his right of forfeiture in the event of immoral user, and that is what this Amendment seeks to carry out.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move in page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert:
or to extend to any failure of the tenant after the commencement of this Act to do work in conformity with the terms of the tenancy necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the condition of the property.
This Amendment is rather different from the one we moved on the Committee stage, which was directed to attempting to solve a particular problem of considerable importance. One of the difficulties in this so-called standstill Measure is to provide, first of all, that a landlord shall not be able to affect the operation of the Measure by enforcing, for instance, a covenant for repair. Everyone recognises that that is something that must not be permitted if this Bill is to operate. On the other hand, while we are preventing that from occurring, there is the grave danger that if we do not leave something available to the landlord, we may in the next two years get a very serious depreciation in the character of buildings through their not being kept in repair.
Let me put this illustration to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We often hear from hon. Members opposite about bad landlords. They always try to make out—for vote-catching purposes—that every landlord is a bad one, but that


is not so. There are also bad tenants as well as good tenants. That we all recognise, and I hope I shall not be considered controversial in saying that. Take the case of a bad tenant whose lease is extended by this part of the Bill for another two years. Such a tenant may be bad, not only because he has not attempted to comply with the obligations into which he has entered, but also because, owing to his being unable to get any fuel under our present system—only a little slate now and then—he takes to destroying the staircase and using that as fuel to cook his meals. Or perhaps he takes up a bit of the floor and burns that, or breaks up the whole building. He does not keep the property in repair but actively engages in its disrepair.
Is there any effective remedy left under this Bill to prevent that from happening? It is all very well to say that under the new Clause its is provided that the landlord can go in and effect repairs at his own expense. That is provided for now as the result of an Amendment made on Committee stage; but it is of no use unless we can change the habits of the tenant; because he will just have another fire and get a bit warmer. The real cure is to have more fuel. I am giving this as an illustration of a defect in this Bill but it is not so very inaccurate in many cases. If hon. Gentlemen will turn their attention from what is, to them, the attractive idea of the bad landlord, and consider the bad tenant they will see that, in its present form, this Bill leaves open a loophole which ought to be closed.

Mr. Keenan: Cannot that take place now? It does not necessarily follow that, because there is an extension of the period to protect a leaseholder, he becomes a worse tenant.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It can take place now, and I dare say it has taken place. I merely said frequently, but I do not know Liverpool, or rather that part of Liverpool which the hon. Gentleman represents, as well as he does. Supposing it does take place now, what happens? That property can be put right because the landlord will get possession of it and can get possession; and someone will get the tenancy who will maintain the property in a proper condition. Someone else in the housing queue will step in and

have a chance of living in a house which has been properly repaired.
8.0 p.m.
Under this Bill, if it goes through in its present form, there will be no power to stop the tenant from doing this again and again. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say that the landlord has the right to get an injunction against the tenant. It is true that that remedy remains, but I doubt whether in practice it is likely to prove an effective remedy. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will recognise that the safeguards to prevent the depreciation of house property are somewhat inadequate. We are concerned with that. It is in the national interest that property should be kept in good repair. At the same time, we recognise that the landlord must not be given an opportunity to get round this Bill on the pretext of enforcing liability for repairs. That is the other danger. We recognise both.
What is the solution? I do not think that this Bill contains the solution. I am not sure that this Amendment contains the correct solution, but I am sure that a solution should be found to stop the landlord getting round this Bill improperly and, at the same time, to prevent unnecessary depreciation of house property. During the Committee stage we put forward the solution of making repairs enforceable when they were demanded in accordance with a notice served by a local authority. That had certain attractions, because it did not rest with the landlord to initiate the demand for those repairs. The demand was made by a third party having regard solely to the condition of the property. That suggestion was rejected.
Now we put forward an alternative method of trying to solve the problem which both sides of the House recognise exists. This method is to take action in respect of the
failure of the tenant after the commencement of this Act to do work in conformity with the terms of the tenancy necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the condition of the property.
I commend to the attention of the House the words:
work…necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the condition of the property.
That is what we want to do, while preventing the landlord from getting round


the Bill. If this Amendment is accepted, it will be for the landlord to take proceedings, if he thinks that this wording has been infringed by the tenant. But he can succeed in those proceedings only if he establishes the points mentioned in the Amendment; namely, that since the commencement of the Act there has been a failure by the tenant to do work which he has undertaken to do and which is necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the conditions of the property.
It seems to us that, having in mind that there is the safeguard of the court having to be satisfied of that before any steps can be taken against the tenant, the insertion of these words would go a long way—we think the whole way—towards securing the objective we want to secure of not providing a loophole for the landlord to get round the Bill, but providing a method whereby when a bad tenant not only fails to repair but, by neglect or active action, leads to the disrepair of the building, action can be taken against him before the expiry of the two years.
I do not feel at all optimistic about this Amendment, in view of the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in reply to other Amendments; but I am sure that if he gives the matter careful consideration he will agree that there is this defect in the Bill as drafted. I am sure he will realise that we do not want to provide a method of evasion for landlords, and that we are not trying to do that. I hope he will say that he will see whether he can do something to secure that, in the two years for which these leases are prolonged, something can be done to prevent further depreciation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say, "We have moved a new Clause to do that"; but that is not enough. Although the landlord may act time and again, if there is the same tenant in the place the tenant may act in the same way time and again. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this matter, even if he cannot say that he can accept something on these lines at present.

Mr. Powell: I beg to second the Amendment.
Since the Bill was first presented it has been improved to some extent in regard to the matter mentioned by my hon. and

learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). In its original form there was no redress of any kind for the landlord for dilapidations which might be perpetrated by the tenant during the two years' extra tenancy granted by the Bill. It might be contended that Clause 6, which was added to the Bill in Committee, meets the point which this Amendment is designed to meet. On examination, it will be found that that is not so.
Clause 6, which we must consider in connection with Clause 5, certainly enables the landlord to carry out work to arrest or prevent serious depreciation. It enables him to charge the tenant for the cost of that work, provided that the tenant's terms and conditions place upon the tenant the burden of maintaining the property in repair. But, and this is the difficulty, that obligation can only be transferred from the landlord to the tenant, and those sums can only be recovered from the tenant, after the termination of the extension of the tenancy which the Bill permits. Therefore, the landlord who enters upon a property and carries out work to arrest or prevent serious deterioration, may well find himself—and in many cases probably will find himself—after the end of the extra period provided by the Bill unable to recover from the tenant the sums which he has expended.
There are, even with this Amendment, ample safeguards in the Bill to prevent Clause 5, as amended, and Clause 6 from being used by landlords as a means of evading the intention of the Bill. First, the object has to be to prevent or arrest serious deterioration; second, the court has to be convinced that it is reasonably necessary; and, third, the repair had to be originally a part of the tenant's obligations under his lease. With those three conditions, upon all of which the court can insist, there is no danger whatever that the right to require the tenant to do, or to pay for, essential necessary repairs currently could be used by any landlord as a means of getting the tenant out.
On the contrary, it is essential that those repairs should be carried out during the period of extension granted by the Bill and that the landlord should not have to undertake them with the risk of not being able to recover his expenditure. It is only if those essential repairs, which the


tenant is obliged to carry out under his existing lease, are carried out by him or at his expense during the currency of the lease that a great deal of property will be kept in reasonable repair which otherwise would deteriorate and which, otherwise, the landlord would be obliged to allow to deteriorate.
Finally, I ask why a tenant enjoying the advantages of the extension granted by the Bill should be in a superior position with regard to his duty to repair and to keep in a good state of maintenance by comparison with the tenant whose lease expires a few months later. If a tenant has still two or more years of his lease to run, then he has to fulfil these obligations; he has to maintain the premises in repair or he can be evicted by the landlord. If, on the other hand, it so happens that his lease expires a few months earlier, then he is to be freed from his obligation until the end of the extended period—and at the end of that period it is very questionable indeed whether he will meet such obligations as the landlord can prove against him.
On the one hand, therefore, this Amendment provides no loophole for a malicious landlord to chisel a tenant out of the protection which it is intended to give him and, on the other hand, it provides the only secure means whereby during the extended period a good deal of property can be kept in the minimum necessary repair.

8.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: We feel that we have gone far in doing justice as between landlord and tenant. What is the situation? If this Amendment were accepted it might well be the case, and in a great many instances it would be the case, that a tenant would find himself confronted with a very serious, heavy and immediate liability. The result would be that the protection which the Act purports to afford him would be more or less illusory.
We are considering what is purely a standstill Measure. The Bill operates for two years and the question is: What is the right interim arrangement to make for the purpose of that two-year period? If the property is in a state in which there is danger of serious depreciation, then it is unlikely that the landlord will not already have taken steps about it before

the two-year period begins. He will have done so if he is apprehensive about the state of his property. I do not wish it to be taken that I suggest that all landlords will want to take unfair advantage of their tenants, but if, on the other hand, he desires to take advantage of his tenant during the two-year period it would be quite easy for him to pick upon a failure to repair which could be argued as possibly conducing to a serious depreciation in the condition of the property.
Faced with that problem, faced with the problem that we do not want this two-year protection to be only protection in name, and faced with the problem that a great many tenants sometimes have not complied with their covenants, particularly their covenants to repair, what we have done, with the assistance of arguments from both sides during the Committee stage, is to insert Clause 6 into the Bill.
I cannot help thinking that the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) over-painted the picture which he was trying to draw. He mentioned quite casually, but only casually, that there was the remedy by injunction and he then proceeded to give an instance of a tenant who pulled up his stair-rods in order to light fires. In a case like that it is quite unreal to suggest that the remedy by injunction would not be extremely effective; it would be very effective indeed, and if a tenant disregarded an injunction restraining him from behaving in that way he would render himself liable to very serious consequences indeed.
It is a wholly unreal picture of the situation to represent the landlord as, during those two years, being wholly incompetent to protect his property. He is not incompetent to do so at all; he can go to the court and, if the kind of action which the hon. and learned Gentleman outlined is taking place, he can ask the court to grant him an injunction to stop it. The court has power to enforce the requirements of its injunction with very stringent penalties. Not only has the landlord that right but, by virtue of the Clause we have inserted, and which at present is Clause 6, he can go upon the premises, can see what repairs need to be done and can do those repairs. He is given the right to recover damages, although, admittedly, his right is suspended. Nevertheless, he has the right


ultimately to recover damages from the tenant in so far as the tenant has neglected to maintain an obligation.
I can conceive that that does not go as far as hon. Members opposite wish us to go, but it is quite incorrect to portray the landlord as being subjected to a situation in which he has to watch his property go to rack and ruin and is powerless to take any steps to prevent it. So far from that being the case, he can go on to the property, can ascertain what it is that needs to be done and can do it himself. In due course he can recover the cost from the tenant and, if the tenant proceeds to undo what he has done or proceeds in a wasteful manner contrary to his obligations under the lease, he can go to the court and ask for an injunction. Those are formidable remedies now in the hands of the landlord. I suggest to the House that, bearing in mind that we are anxious to keep the scales equal between the two, we have about hit upon the right dividing line which fairly holds the balance between the landlord and the tenant. For those reasons I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Molson: I can scarcely think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was himself convinced by his own argument. He has taken an example which we put forward, and the fact that he has accepted it shows that he appreciates that there may be such cases. That is the case of a tenant who is either negligently allowing the property to go to rack or ruin or may even be doing wanton damage to the property. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that it is an adequate remedy for the landlord to be able to go to the court and obtain an injunction. He also suggests that it will be satisfactory to the landlord if he is allowed to enter upon the property and carry out the repairs at his own expense, although he will not be able to recover the money from the tenant until the end of the two years during which protection is being given to the tenant under the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken that example of a person who is either carrying out wanton damage of that kind or is allowing the property to go to rack and ruin. What possible inducement is there to a landlord to enter upon the property and spend money upon repairs which have been made necessary by the wanton damage done by the tenant?

The Government have repeated time and again that this is a standstill Measure and that they are considering what kind of permanent legislation they should introduce. It is quite plain that some of the back bench supporters of the Government have no intention that the property which comes within Part I of the Bill shall, in fact, revert to the owner.
Supposing we have the person who carries out this kind of wanton damage. Is it likely that after two years there would be any probability that a landlord would be able to recover from someone of that kind the cost of the repairs which he has carried out to meet the damage which such a tenant has done? We are, of course, dealing, as it is the whole purpose of this Amendment to deal, with the case of the really bad tenant. We are not suggesting that this is the normal case at all; but we are saying that there are bad tenants, and that it is only fair and right and reasonable, and that it is in the national interest, that there should be some adequate remedy against them; and it is, surely, reasonably obvious that, in such a case where the tenant has behaved in this way in the past, he is likely to behave in the same way in future.
I am astonished that the Solicitor-General should say that he really conceives himself to be holding the balance evenly between tenants and landlords. Surely, in the case of a bad tenant of this kind, the only simple, cheap and effective remedy that can be made available to the landlord is to enable him to evict the bad tenant and to regain possession of his house. If the Government really did desire to hold the balance evenly between tenants and landlords, surely in a case where, as is provided in this Amendment, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the tenant is not carrying out the obligations he entered into, and that the property is deteriorating, as a result either of the tenant's negligence or of his malice—

Mr. Awbery: The property belongs to the tenant until the lease expires.

Mr. Molson: That is the most extraordinary statement that we have heard in this debate. Obviously, the property does not belong to the tenant, because he would not be the tenant if the property belonged to him.

Mr. Awbery: He is the leaseholder.

Mr. Molson: Yes. His being the leaseholder shows that the property does not belong to him. If the real purpose of some hon. Gentlemen on the back benches on the other side is to use this Bill for the purpose of depriving landlords of their ownership of property, without any compensation it is not the purpose that has been avowed by the Government. It is something entirely different. We on this side of the House are fully aware—

Mr. G. Thomas: Compensation after 99 years?

Mr. Molson: This is extremely interesting. What I am asking for in the case of the landlords is reasonable protection for the landlords' property; and I have quoted what the Solicitor-General said, that the Government intend to hold, and believe that they are holding, the balance evenly between the landlords and the tenants. Interruptions that are coming from the back benches on the other side show that that is the very last thing they intend, and that their purpose is to use the Bill—which was introduced for the prime purpose of defending tenants, in a time of difficulty, against unreasonable treatment—for the complete transformation of the law of property in this country. They have admitted it, and are perfectly open about it.
But I am trying to address an argument to the Solicitor-General. Neither he nor the Attorney-General has suggested that the purpose of the Bill is to expropriate the landlords for the benefit of the tenants. I conclude by making what, I hope, is a reasonable appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to consider again whether, in the case of really bad tenants, adequate protection is given to the rights of the landlords; and I would also appeal to him to consider whether it is not in the national interest that as much as possible of the limited house property in this country should be kept in a reasonable state of repair.

Mr. Keenan: From what the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has said, I gather that there seems to be some confusion as to what tenancies really are. I think that that is pretty obvious. So far as I understand the Bill, it covers leases

falling in, as well as tenancies over long terms, where there is a danger to the tenant and the owner of the property from the owner of the ground lease, when that falls in. This Bill is not to resolve what is to be done about that, as I understand it, but is to give the Government an opportunity to introduce legislation to deal with it.
The hon. Member for The High Peak accuses back benchers of having certain desires in this connection. I want to plead quite guilty to the worst that he stated about them, because we all know about leases falling in. This goes on all over the country, and it certainly goes on in the Liverpool area, where people who built on land, and who probably occupy the houses now, lose the whole lot of it after 75 years or 99 years. That is one of the troubles. It is not only the owner-occupier who has bought the house or got possession of the lease who is affected.
There are two different sorts of properties, business properties as well as dwelling-houses, the leases of which are falling in from time to time, and the landlords have not been quite so generous as the hon. Member for The High Peak and others have sought to make out in their treatment of their tenants. I remember that within the last three years the owner of a very fine, old-established business in Bold Street, Liverpool, which had been established 50 or 60 years, had to get out, not because he was not looking after the property, but because the individual who acquired the lease in that part of Liverpool was able to take advantage and get him out and get the good will. There was no compensation. There was not a halfpenny of compensation. It was a case of "get out."
8.30 p.m.
I do not think that every tenant has become a recalcitrant citizen or a vicious tenant. Because this standstill arrangement has come into being, it would appear that some of the Amendments at least have been designed to protect the landlord with the clear idea in mind that the effect of this Bill would be that every tenant would pay no regard to the property, and would in effect destroy it. It is not fair to assume that. Of course it is true that even today, some tenants do not treat property in a reasonable way. That is obvious to us all, and it ocours in every city; but it is not for the landlords to


complain. Landlords have been neglecting property for a number of years. If as a result of this Bill there is, as is suggested, any likelihood of all these awful things being done to the property by tenants and it is necessary to protect the property, not necessarily because it is the landlord's, I am prepared to agree that there is justification for it.

Mr. Molson: The whole point is that under the leases as they are at present, the landlord has a remedy if the tenant does not carry out his contractual obligations. Under the Bill as at present drafted he cannot enforce those obligations during the extension of two years.

Mr. Keenan: I have heard the assurances given by the Solicitor-General from time to time, and I think the Government have taken everything into consideration and provided the necessary protection. For that reason, I think we must oppose this Amendment.

Sir Ian Fraser: I hope I may be excused by the Solicitor-General and other hon. and learned Members if I do not claim to be au fait with the precise text of various Clauses of this most complex Measure. As a layman listening to the arguments, I venture to ask the Solicitor-General whether he can answer one question categorically and clearly, because that would help to define my attitude towards this Amendment.
Does the Bill remove from the landlord any of the rights he possesses under the lease? There is a relationship between landlord and tenant. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a standstill for two years while the Government think what should be done. The Government may change, and other arrangements may be made. I am not advocating that course at the moment, but if we accept the view that this is a standstill Measure, ought it to prejudge what will be the result of that further consideration? I therefore ask the Government to make quite clear to the House and the country whether during the two years the rights of the parties remain what they are, or whether they are altered. If they are altered, are they altered to the disadvantage of the landlord or to the disadvantage of the tenant? If so, upon what ground or justification?

There is one comment I should like to make on the observations of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan). He appeared to me to speak with a prejudice in this matter. I do not say that in any offensive way, but he did appear to assume that legislation of this kind can be right only if it is one-sided. He said that the tenant has paid for the property for 99 years. Surely that is not the case. If he has been paying for the property for 99 years, or 75 years, or whatever it may be, the rent he has been paying has been the amount of money required to hire the property for the period, not to buy it. There is a difference between hiring and buying.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the Amendment.

Sir I. Fraser: I was only following the hon. Member for Kirkdale in his muddle-headed argument. I do not wish to pursue it.

Mr. Keenan: I cannot allow the hon. Member to call what I said "muddle-headed." He does not understand. He has not been here long enough to follow the debate. What he has missed—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is the Report stage and the hon. Gentleman can speak only once on this Amendment.

Sir P. Spens: I want to raise only one point. On the Committee stage, I was taken to task because I said that the remedy of injunction was not a kind remedy from the point of view of the tenant or the landlord, because to enforce an injunction an order in the High Court would have to be taken and such action would be extraordinarily expensive for everyone concerned; and as we are dealing in the main with small houses and small tenants, it would not be kind to take even a bad tenant—and in 90 per cent. of the cases the tenants are good tenants—to the High Court.
The answer to that was that I did not know my procedure and that it was possible for a landlord to go to the county court to get an injunction. I have been studying the report of the present Master of the Rolls and his Committee on the procedure of the courts, and when they come to deal with the county court, they point out that one of the difficulties of


the county court is that it cannot grant an injunction unless there is some other claim in addition to that for an injunction and a money claim.
When I look at the Bill and I see that every remedy except an injunction is put out of the way, I cannot see how a landlord will be able to issue a writ for an injunction alone and succeed in the county court. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that matter, and if I am wrong and he can assure me that there is a remedy in an injunction alone with no other claim in the county court, I shall be delighted; but if there is not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and, I think, the Attorney-General had no right to say that there is any real protection in this matter, if the only remedy the landlord has is to take the unfortunate tenant to the High Court, because by doing so the Government are doing no kindness to anybody, particularly the poor tenant.

Mr. Higgs: There are one or two points which arise on this question of forcing the landlord, as this Clause may do, to seek a remedy in an injunction where otherwise he would not seek it. After all, the law in this matter, so far, has been run on rules imposed between landlord and tenant. There are some faults on the part of the tenant that we proceed to put right by injunction as a suitable remedy, others which we proceed to put right by action for damages, and others, such as misbehaviour on the part of the tenant, which we have always regarded as being put right by re-entry and re-assuming possession.
What this Clause does, and what we seek to avoid by this Amendment, is to drift into one channel of remedy for the landlord in all cases, namely, by an injunction. One result is that the court would only grant an injunction in certain cases. On the question of getting repairs done, the courts have repeatedly said that they will not grant an injunction. In the case of stair-rods which were burnt in the fire, the court could not grant an injunction to get them out of the fire and to put them back after they had been burnt. There are many things that can happen in connection with which an injunction is impossible.
This Clause takes away the rights of the landlord in many respects. It takes away the right of the landlord to recover

a proportion of the cost of insurance; it takes away the right of the landlord in the event of bankruptcy; it takes away the right of the landlord where a tenant, contrary to his covenant, has altered the property, where a tenant refuses to pay the rates when he has an obligation to pay them; and in a whole host of similar respects.
We are being very modest in this Amendment. All that we are asking the House to do is restore to the landlord his right to get something done when the landlord's interests and those of the community as a whole coincide. On one matter, even those hon. Members opposite who sit to the extreme left of their party may agree. That is the question of a landlord keeping a house which can be of service to the community, when the rights of the landlord and the rights of the community as a whole coincide. By that I mean that when it is the landlord who is seeking to have a house maintained, then the landlord is doing what the community ought to have him do. In this case, where we have a tenant who would neglect and a landlord who would preserve, surely the community ought to be on the side of the landlord. That is all we are asking the House to do in this case.
We are being exceedingly careful to make sure that a landlord cannot take advantage, as bad landlords do. I have seen cases where thousands of pounds of dilapidations for past failures have been demanded. That cannot happen, because in this case we give the landlord the right to claim only in respect of dilapidations arising or occurring during the period of the extension. I cannot see how it can be said that we are weighting the scales on the side of the landlord when we are only providing that a house shall get no worse for the period of the extension. I cannot see how it can be said it is unfair that the landlord should seek to do what the community ought to have done in the interests of us all.

Amendment negatived.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, to leave out from "Act," to the end of line 5, and to insert:
then—

(a) in so far as the proceedings are for enforcement of any right of forfeiture or re-entry such as is specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, they shall be stayed except as respects the making of an order as to costs;


(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, no judgment or order given or made in the proceedings for the payment of damages shall be enforceable until the expiration of two years after the commencement of this Act or the coming to an end of the tenancy, whichever first occurs."

This Amendment is designed to carry into effect a proposal made by Members opposite in regard to subsection (3), which provides that if proceedings have been brought after 21st November, 1950, they are finally stayed, except so far as the making of an order for costs is concerned. It was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), that that was rather a wasteful way of dealing with the situation, because it really meant that, the proceedings being stayed, the landlord, if he wished to reinstitute them, after the two years had expired, had again to take all the steps he had already taken, with the result that the whole expense of the proceedings was thrown away. That was disadvantageous not only to the landlord but also to the tenant. It meant that whoever had ultimately to pay the costs had to pay the extra amount represented by the proceedings that had been thrown away.
We are proposing that there should be an interim stay, and that the steps already taken should not be thrown away, but that the proceedings can be resumed after the two-year period has expired. As I intimated, I felt that that was not an unreasonable proposal, and that it was in the interests of both parties to a dispute. In the interval we have considered the matter, and we have put down this Amendment which is designed to carry out the purpose the hon. and learned Member had in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(POWER OF LANDLORD TO CARRY OUT ESSENTIAL REPAIRS.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 44, to leave out "another person," and to insert:
or recovered from the landlord.
This is merely a drafting Amendment to remove an ambiguity.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to say, "Thank you" to the Solicitor-General for this Amendment and for the

previous one, and to assure him that if he had only accepted more of our Amendments the Bill would have been a much better Bill.

Sir P. Spens: I should also like to add my word of thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was not quick enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the last Amendment, and I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for meeting us on that one, all the more so because it was at my request that the matter was reconsidered. It has improved the Bill quite a lot.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(RENEWAL OF TENANCIES OF SHOPS.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, to leave out "be," and to insert:
if the landlord so requires be a tenancy of the whole subject of the expiring tenancy, and otherwise.
This Amendment is to give effect to a suggestion made by the Opposition, which was designed to enable a landlord who required the tenancy, granted under Clause 10 of Part II of the Bill, to extend to the whole of the premises, to be so extended. It was felt that it would not be unreasonable, if a new tenancy for shop premises or residential accommodation were granted, if the landlord so desired it, for it to be extended not to part but to the whole of the premises which were the subject of the tenancy. This Amendment carries out that purpose.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Once again, I rise to say "Thank you" to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this Amendment and also for the very clear and lucid explanation of the object of it, which we feel will achieve its purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 36, leave out from "that," to end of line 37, and insert:
where the landlord does not require the new tenancy to be of the whole of the subject of the expiring tenancy, and.
In page 10, line 5, after "shall," insert:
unless the court in its discretion otherwise determines."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 11.—(TIME FOR, AND INTERIM EFFECT OF, APPLICATION FOR NEW TENANCY.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move in page 10, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where apart from this section the expiring tenancy would expire by effluxion of time, the landlord may at any time not earlier than four months before the date on which that tenancy would so expire serve on the tenant notice, in such form and containing such particulars as to the provisions of this Part of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument, requiring the tenant within the period of one month from the date of the service of the notice to elect whether or not to make an application under this Part of this Act; and where such a notice is served no such application shall be made in relation to the expiring tenancy after the end of that period.
During the Committee stage a debate arose as to the time within which a tenant, if he desired a fresh tenancy under Part II of the Bill, could give notice to that effect. As the Bill at present reads, that period is one month. It was represented by hon. Members opposite that one month was quite unsatisfactory. It was felt that a landlord would be put in the situation that, coming near the end of a tenancy, he would not know whether the tenant was going to ask for a new tenancy or not. Hon. Members opposite proposed that the one month should be extended to three months, but most of my hon. Friends disagree with that view, arguing that if the period were extended from one to three months the situation would constantly arise of a tenant, through ignorance of his rights, not realising, before the three months began to run out, that he should make a claim for a new tenancy if he so desired.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), did not take that view. He felt that the landlord would be unfairly disadvantaged if some such provision was not made. What we have tried to do in the period between the Committee stage and today is to try to excogitate a scheme which meets all objections. That scheme is embodied in the new provision which I am moving. It is that not earlier than four months from the expiry of the tenancy the landlord should give notice to the tenant telling him that if he wants to make a claim for a new tenancy he has to do so within one

month from the date on which he receives the notice from the landlord.
The result is that the landlord will not be left in a situation of not knowing until the last moment what is to happen, and that the tenant, from his point of view, will get a notice from the landlord which will bring prominently to his attention the fact that if he wants to make application for a fresh tenancy he must take the necessary steps for that purpose within one month of getting the notice. We feel that this scheme does justice between the two parties and we hope that the House will agree to make this change in the Bill.

Mr. Powell: Hon. Gentlemen who pressed upon the Government at an earlier stage the difficulties of the Clause in its unamended state will be grateful to the Solicitor-General for the Amendment. It has the merit of avoiding the difficulties which we foresaw, that the provisions of Clause 4 would give an extra extension to the skilful and ill-intentioned tenant, and it avoids the difficulties which the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out at that time. I think that his process of excogitation has had a happy solution, or, as he might more briefly have put it, his lucubrations have resulted in expiscating from his subconscious a satisfactory solution.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(POWER OF COURT TO GRANT NEW TENANCIES OF SHOPS.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 11, line 9, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in fixing the rent, terms and conditions the court shall disregard any considerations arising from the personal circumstances of any of the parties.
The Amendment seeks to make a slight change in Clause 12, which enables a county court judge to grant a new lease of shop premises if he thinks it reasonable in all the circumstances so to do. When we were debating what the county court judge should be empowered to take into account, it was the view of the Committee that purely personal circumstances of the applicant or the respondent were irrelevant. It would be, for example, irrelevant to the question whether he should have a new lease, that he has been extravagant and lost his


money by betting, or something of that kind. Such circumstances should not be taken into account by the county court judge.
To give effect to that expression of view, we have put down the Amendment. The House will see that it requires the court to disregard any considerations arising from the personal circumstances of any of the parties. The county court judge is therefore required to exclude from his mind purely personal matters, but he may take into account anything apart from them. It is entirely for him to decide what weight he shall attribute to any other circumstances, so that he may arrive at a just conclusion between the two parties.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Once again I rise to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting a point which was raised by this side of the House. I disagreed with him when he said that he thought it was a small point. It is a very important point. It is very important that we should be able to give guidance to the county court judges who will administer this most difficult Bill as to what they should and should not take into account.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman selected rather an unfortunate illustration—unless, perhaps, he was in Lincolnshire last Saturday—when he talked about people losing money by betting. However, I agree with him that in determining this question no one should take into account the personal circumstances of any of the parties, such as whether they have lost money by betting or have won a football pool. All personal circumstances should be eliminated when considering the question.
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has reached the same conclusion as we did. Once again I thank him, and I draw his attention to the fact that he could have made remarkably speedy progress with the Bill if only he had listened to the weighty arguments advanced by this side of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, leave out lines 10 to 14.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 15.—(APPEALS.)

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 13, line 31, at the end, to insert:
except with the leave of the court or the court of appeal.
Oddly enough, these words reverse the whole purpose of this short Clause, which begins by saying that there shall be no appeal from any determination under this part of the Bill. I am not sure that, grammatically, they would not be better at the beginning of the Clause.
There are two points which the House might consider when deciding whether there should be an appeal under this part. Those who will indulge in the benefits of the Bill may find that they are getting as deeply into gambling as both Front Benches seem to be. To come back to a point I made on an earlier Amendment, we were promised that by the end of two years lease-holders who come within the benefits of the Bill at the moment would get something, but they do not know what it will be. In the Black Country we call that "buying a pig in a poke."
The person who seeks the benefit of the Bill is not merely getting something to maintain him where he is for a couple of years, or less, as has been glibly stated once or twice on the other side of the House; he is buying something which may last him for ever. Consequently, it is not much good the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that we do not need an appeal and that, even if the court makes a decision, it does not matter very much because it merely keeps one person in one house for a few months or kicks out a person who would have to go in a few months' time in any event. That is not the point. The decision which the county court may have to make under Part II may enable the tenant not only to remain for another 12 months in his premises, but to remain there always.
I hope that we shall not be asked to dismiss the suggestion that there should be a right of appeal because it is not worth while and because the costs of an appeal would be more than the value of a few months of tenancy. Quite sincerely, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway who set store by the Bill will remember that they must have in mind not only what


the Bill gives but also what will follow. Consequently the rights which the Bill gives need to be defined rather carefully.
9.0 p.m.
Let me mention two other matters which may influence them. We have had a number of cases in legislation of recent years where Parliament has embarked on some quite new field—the Rent Restriction Acts are an example—and where we have had to say to some extent that we will leave it to the judges, with centuries of experience behind them, to work out the details. I believe the present Foreign Secretary, when he was Lord President of the Council in the previous Parliament, said something like that about the Representation of the People Bill. When he was asked about the new rules at election time, he rather brushed the question aside by saying, "We lay down the general guiding principles and leave it to the courts to work them out in practice."
Here we are giving the courts a much wider discretion. Apart from the fact that they must not look at a man's bank balance, we are simply telling them, by the Amendment we have just adopted, that they may look at anything—the colour of his tie, the shape of his head—to decide what it is fair for him to have, With all respect to a very great profession, county court judges are human and, like all human beings, they must vary from one to another and from one district to another. They cannot help that. One of the greatest saving provisions of our law in cases like that is that, although we work out a uniform code, we have an appeal to a higher court in the background all the time. I feel sure that the House should consider whether, in order to secure something like uniformity between the respective parts of the country, which have had such strong advocates in the course of this debate, in order that the Midlands may have the same law as South Wales or London, we ought to have an appeal to a higher court when occasion arises so that some standard may be laid down.
It ought to be apparent to everybody in this House that we are embarking upon something which will be complicated. It ought to be apparent that this is strange ground. It ought to be apparent that from time to time new situations will arise in which a court of first instance may

occasionally go wrong. I suggest to the House that in cases like that it is necessary that there should always be a court where a tenant who thinks he has had the wrong end of the law should have the right, if he is prepared to embark on it, to go to appeal.
I also suggest that hard cases make bad law. In cases under this kind of provision, very often a court is tempted to look at the hardship in a case rather than the law, and to lay down a principle which may subsequently work harshly. That has happened again and again under the Rent Acts. Again and again a decision has been made which works out badly when it is followed in subsequent cases. Happily the courts of this country who get themselves into that sort of mess from time to time have a way of getting out of it. They can go to a higher court. It is only when one has reached the House of Lords that a really impossible situation arises. I say that such difficulties are likely to arise under this Bill and, having regard to all that is involved, I hope the House will not dismiss this lightly.

Mr. Black: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is really in the nature of a compromise between two conflicting points of view. In our previous discussions the view was put forward quite strongly that there should be no right of appeal beyond the county court in view of the limited scope and duration of the Bill. On the other hand, a great many Members on this side have felt very strongly that it is unsatisfactory, where some important point of law is involved, that it should be impossible for an aggrieved party to take the matter to a higher court. We therefore favour, on the whole, an aggrieved party having a right of appeal in the ordinary conditions under which a right of appeal would normally lie.
The Amendment is in the nature of a compromise between the two views. It would not confer an automatic right of appeal upon an aggrieved party, but only the right to appeal to a higher court in cases in which the court itself felt that there was a sufficiently important and fundamental point of law involved to justify the court granting leave of appeal to a higher court.
It seems to me wholly wrong for Parliament to preclude the possibility of an


appeal to a higher court being made in circumstances in which the court itself felt that, for guidance in similar cases in future, it would be desirable for a particular point of law to be reviewed by a higher tribunal. Therefore, I hope that the compromise element in the Amendment will appeal to those who, perhaps, have previously favoured there being no right of appeal whatever and will lead them to be willing to accept what I venture to suggest is a very reasonable compromise between the two conflicting sides.

The Solicitor-General: Having considered this matter carefully, we feel that it would be better that there should not be a right of appeal, even with leave. I will give my reasons for saying this. Admittedly, the question is a difficult one and the considerations can be urged with force on each side, but nevertheless what seems to us to be the guiding consideration is that we are, after all, in this matter dealing with a whole variety of comparatively small people; the majority, although not all, will be within that category. There will be larger shop owners, landlords and so on, but there will be a great variety of small people.
Looking at the matter from the viewpoint of the vast majority of people who will be affected by the Bill, one has to ask whether it is in their interest that the decision of the county court judge should be open to challenge in a higher court and then, I suppose, ultimately in the House of Lords. In looking at this problem, one has to say that if a right of appeal is given to one party, so it must equally be given to the other party; each party must have a right of appeal. The result is that if we give this right of appeal, even with leave, there is the danger that a very large number of people who can ill afford it—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is legal aid.

The Solicitor-General: —and who certainly do not want to undertake it, will be faced with the prospect of long, expensive and worrying litigation. Admittedly, the Legal Aid and Advice Act may have some application, but as the hon. and learned Member knows, it has at present been brought only partially into operation, but of course it would apply

to the Court of Appeal. On balance, therefore, we feel it is best to leave the Bill as it is.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs), who moved the Amendment, placed great stress upon the desirability of securing uniformity. Of course, that is a cogent argument. It would be a great deal more cogent if we were not dealing with a purely standstill Measure. If we were looking at litigation which was to set a standard of precedence over a long period, which could only be amended or changed by fresh legislation, there would be a great deal more to be said for securing that a court of appeal prescribes some general principles upon which the decision should be exercised, and so on. That is not the case when dealing simply with this two-year standstill Measure. The problems which the courts will have to consider are very largely—I will not say entirely—pure questions of fact, questions of individual judgment and reaction to a given set of circumstances.
These are matters which are peculiarly appropriate for determination by the county court judge, who will have the parties before him and will have full opportunity of investigating any factors that he thinks material in the realm of fact. In these circumstances, on balance we would prefer to leave the Bill as it is, for the reasons I have given. If we allow a right of appeal, we shall be opening up the prospect of long and worrying litigation to persons who on both sides would probably prefer to have the matter decided once and for all, and in those circumstances I hope the House will agree that this new change will not be adopted.

Mr. Peter Roberts: One point I would like to put to the Solicitor-General is that as I understand it, he is putting a great deal of responsibility on the county court judge. He will correct me if I am wrong, but at present I understand that an appeal lies from the county court judge to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. If we pass this Clause it seems to be extremely difficult to make the argument that a point of law arises and that seems to be making the county court judge the final arbiter.
Assuming that this Clause becomes part of the Bill there will be more work for


county court judges, who are very overworked and extremely underpaid. There was an argument that they were poorly paid because there were people above them who took more responsibility, but here we are putting more responsibility on the county court judges. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered whether, as a result of this Clause, there might not be a suggestion that county court judges' fees may go up in the future?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think this is a little wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Roberts: With respect, my view on this will depend on whether or not a county court judge can do his job properly. At present, he is grossly underpaid—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no doubt that he is, but not under this Amendment.

Mr. Roberts: I am glad of your support, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on that point, and as that was the main point I was trying to make I will sit down.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Following the pertinent observations of my hon. Friend, which were obviously out of order on this Bill, I would say that I regarded the argument of the Solicitor-General as singularly unconvincing. Indeed, the longer I listened to him the more convinced I was that he had for once picked up the wrong brief and was dealing with the Amendment we moved on the Committee stage, when we moved to delete the Clause entirely. This Amendment gives a much more limited right of appeal. The arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were not directed to the questions at issue.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that in the majority of cases the questions would be questions of fact, and I quite agree with him. A great many of the questions will be questions of fact, but is he really suggesting that even if the Amendment were carried there would be an appeal to the Court of Appeal with the leave of the Court of Appeal from a county court judge on a pure question of fact? That, obviously, is an entirely fallacious argument on his part, so we can brush it on one side. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting

that in the interpretation of this complicated Bill questions of law are not likely to arise? I do not think he can put that forward in view of our discussions here.
We have all found, on both sides of the House, great difficulty in understanding the precise application of certain parts of the Bill. Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, when dealing with Clause 3, fell into error. If an error on a point of law was made by a county court judge, should there not be a right of appeal with the leave of the Court of Appeal? That is the only issue here and hon. Members opposite must not assume—and I hope they will not—that the error in law will always be in favour of the tenant. It may be an error in law which is to the prejudice of the tenant or it may be one to the prejudice of the landlord. The question raised by the Amendment is whether, where there is an error in law, that is to say something which deprives someone affected by this Bill of something which they should have, there ought not to be an appeal, with leave. That is the sole issue.
9.15 p.m.
I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that to put forward the argument (that the Government think that, on balance, it would be in the interests of the vast majority that there should be no right of appeal on a question of law, is to state something which really carries not the slightest weight. If we are to have an appeal system, at least have one from the county court, when leave is given only in cases which have obviously gone wrong on points of law and in respect of which it may well be most desirable to have laid down by a higher court a ruling as to the interpretation of this Measure which will be applicable to all the county courts.
We have made very good progress for some time, during which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has proved himself amenable to our suggestions. If he would only say that he would give further consideration to this matter, I am sure that that would meet with the wishes of the whole House, because this matter affects both tenants and landlords in relation to points of law. We should be able to get on much more speedily if he took that attitude, because I feel sure that, on reflection, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would recognise that


his arguments were really directed to the Amendment moved during the Committee stage and not to the one which is now being discussed.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude towards this Amendment, because that attitude is clearly mistaken. The right hon. and learned Gentleman resisted the Amendment on the ground that many small people would be inconvenienced, and he obviously regarded the Amendment as likely to produce greater or more prolonged litigation. I think it is likely to have precisely the opposite effect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the vast majority of cases would turn on questions of fact. That is undoubtedly right, and, in so far as they do so, there will, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has pointed out, be no appeal, even if this Amendment is agreed to, because no leave to appeal will be granted when the question involved is one of fact.
Therefore, what the House has to consider is the effect of leaving the Clause as it stands or, alternatively, of agreeing to the Amendment, under which the only appeal that will be allowed is an appeal on a question of law. I wish to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the point that, if this Clause remains as it now stands, unamended, it is absolutely certain that there will be divergent judgments by county court judges on questions, of law. Consequently, when a similar question arises, the advisors of the litigants on either side will be entirely unable to advise their clients which way the court is likely to decide, if the matter has to be fought out at length. That is absolutely inevitable, if there are divergent decisions on the same point of law and there is no superior court to say which of those decisions is the correct one.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong when he considers that that uncertainty is in the interests of the small man. No one will be more inconvenienced than small people who find that their legal adviser is unable to advise them how their case is likely to go; because he will tell them, with perfect truth, "There are on this point divergent decisions by county court judges and it is impossible to find out which is right and

likely to be followed when your own case comes before the court. "If this Amendment is adopted we should in a short time get certainty on all the questions of law on this part of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, on which different decisions by county court judges are possible.
In the vast majority of cases no right of appeal would be given under this Amendment, were it adopted, but in all the remaining cases there would be the possibility of an appeal, generally on the ground that there was a difficult question of law to decide on which there were divergent decisions by county court judges. The effect of allowing a decision by a higher court would be that the question could then be authoritatively decided; and, far from that being against the interests of the small litigant, it will help him. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision.

The Solicitor-General: If I may have leave to address the House again, I would say, as I said before, that we think the considerations are very nicely balanced in this matter. I would propose, if the House were agreeable, that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment should ask leave to withdraw upon my undertaking—without giving any commitment as to what I shall do—to give the matter further consideration; so that if we decide that a change on the lines proposed is possible that course may be taken in another place.

Mr. Higgs: On that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16.—(APPLICATION TO CROWN.)

Sir Austin Hudson: I beg to move, in page 13, line 35, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 39, and to insert "bind the Crown."
The object of this Amendment is to attempt to clarify the position regarding sub-tenants, particularly sub-tenants under the Crown. As I explained on the Committee stage, there are only a very limited number of tenants of Crown property who are affected. They seem mostly to live in that part of London which I represent and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward), who will second the Amendment.
I am sure that everyone in the House knows what we mean by Crown property and Crown tenants, but I have found that certain people seem to think that I am attacking the Monarch, and that His Majesty must in some way be a bad landlord. But everyone here, I hope, knows that Crown property is under the Commissioners of Crown Lands who, in turn, are supervised by the Government. In fact, when I wrote about some point to the Commissioners, I had a very polite reply from the Minister of Agriculture, who took complete authority to answer the point.
The reason I have put down this Amendment is to provide an opportunity for the Solicitor-General to report the result of the investigations which, on Committee stage, he promised to make into this point. I realise that the Rent Acts do not apply to sub-tenants of Crown lands and that nothing in this Measure can make them do so. At the same time, it is rather hard to tell these sub-tenants that they had no form of security before and, therefore, they shall have none now. I believe that the direct tenant of the Crown will have his lease extended for two years, provided he has the 21-year lease or over, coming to an end at the appropriate time. I presume that is so, otherwise I cannot see what is the object of Clause 16. But the subtenant appears to be the only person in this class who is not assisted in any way by the Bill.
The whole object of this Bill is to help those tenants and sub-tenants in long ground lease property where the leases are coming to an end, and to carry on the leases for two years until the Government have an opportunity of introducing permanent legislation in which I believe that they intend to deal with the question of Crown tenants. It seems hard that these Crown tenants should not have the same security as they would have if they had a private landlord. They should be able to carry on for two years just as if they were tenants and not subtenants or as if their landlord were a private citizen and not the Crown or the Government.
Another point is that by these wider words which I propose, we shall bring in the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. This question was raised

during the Committee stage and the answer given was that both of the Duchies are good landlords and, therefore, there really was not much object in bringing them in. However, sub-tenants there might meet the same difficulties. I do not know whether my wording is correct, but, if it is, I think the two Duchies would be included as well as the ordinary Crown lands which are covered by the original words of Clause 16.

Mr. Steward: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so in the hope that it will be accepted by the Government and that this will be a first step towards the removal of discrimination and hardship suffered by an unfortunate section of the community—the sub-tenants who are residents of Crown property. As we all know, as the law stands leaseholders of Crown property can evict sitting tenants upon application to the court, and then re-let at extortionate rents or sell, if they think fit.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) said, there are a large number of houses in my constituency which are affected. Some 3,000 are on Crown property, and a number of cases occur every month where new landlords acquire the property and, upon the tenant refusing to pay an increased rent because he cannot afford it, eviction follows. An example was brought to my notice towards the end of last year of a certain person who acquired a number of residues of Crown residential properties, turned out the tenants by process of the law and sold or re-let at increased rents. One of the victims was an old age pensioner who literally could not afford to pay the extra amount. When the new landlord was asked how it was thought possible for this old-age pensioner to pay such an increased rent, in view of her slender income, which was known to everybody, he replied, "I neither know nor do I care." Incidentally, this old-age pensioner had lived in the property for 16 years.
9.30 p.m.
I submit that this sort of thing is taking place throughout London and that here is an opportunity for the Government to do something about it. This is an important point: I know of no case where the Crown


has been plaintiff in an action of this nature. The Crown is always assumed to be a good landlord, and we all know that undoubtedly it is. But often, long after the Crown has granted a 99 years' lease, by sub-demise a succession of landlords arise who are as far removed from the Crown as they could possibly be; and it is nonsense to assume that those landlords are also good landlords merely because they hold their sub-leases from the Crown while, at the same time, assuming that other landlords, equal to them in other respects but not holding Crown leases, are bad landlords.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North, has said, on 22nd February the Solicitor-General was good enough to undertake to look into the position of sub-tenants of the Crown, but as I see it, as a very humble layman surrounded by many able lawyers, this Bill does nothing whatever to protect the subtenant of Crown property, who can be turned out at the notice of a week or a month or a quarter merely in accordance with how he pays the rent.
We often hear from the Government side about fair shares for all. By accepting this Amendment, the Government could put into practice their expressed beliefs and thus ensure the same fair treatment and protection for sub-tenants of the Crown as is enjoyed by sub-tenants of any other property. I appreciate that it may be said that there are all sorts of legal difficulties in the way of bringing about this reform, but it is for the Government to administer justice and to see that justice is done to all alike.

The Solicitor-General: Whether the argument on the merits of the case is well-founded or not, the fact is that the Amendment would not in any way alter the position of Crown sub-tenants and would not, therefore, achieve what the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson), and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward), have in mind. The Amendment has an altogether different effect and is really drafting, except that it would of course affect the position of the Duchy. Thus, whether the argument is justifiable on the merits of the case or not does not really enter into the purview of the discussion on this Amendment.
I turn, next, to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North.

The position of sub-tenants from the Crown depends upon what Clause 7 does with regard to them. The hon. Member is really concerned with the application of the Rent Restriction Acts to subtenants of the Crown and, as he knows, those Acts do not bind the Crown. In so far as sub-tenants of the Crown are concerned, Clause 7 does not in any way alter the position, nor does Clause 16, which is the Clause which says that this Bill binds the Crown. What Clause 7 does is this: it says that where a mesne lessee's interest comes to an end, the subtenant from the mesne lessee shall for the period of two years have such rights against the head landlord as he would have had if the mesne lessee's interest had continued for those two years.
We start from the position, therefore, that the Rent Restriction Acts do not bind the Crown and do not protect subtenants from the Crown, and it follows as a result that the effect of the Clause is not to give sub-tenants of the Crown a rent restriction protection which otherwise they would not have had. That, I think, does answer the hon. Member's question, and I think it does also provide the answer to the incidental suggestion that he made, that in order to bring in the sub-tenants of the Duchies, his Amendment should be accepted. Inasmuch as the Rent Restriction Acts will not apply to the sub-tenants of the Crown, I think he will probably agree that there is no point in accepting his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 19.—(SERVICE OF NOTICES.)

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 14, line 37, to leave out from "Section," to "shall," in line 38, and to insert:
twenty-three of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927.
This is identical with an Amendment which I moved on the Committee stage and which, I am afraid, owing to a misapprehension about the time, I did not move in anything like the detail I ought to have done, and I now will put the position more clearly, I hope, before the House; and I am fortified by the knowledge that the Amendment has met with a certain amount of sympathy from the Government.
Clause 19 is that which deals with the question of the service of notices. Section 196 of the Law of Property Act, 1925,


is the sort of omnibus section which is often used by reference in other Statutes. If we want to get regulations for the service of notices, we refer to Section 196, and in a normal Bill I do not think there would be any difficulty or doubt about it that that would be a fairly appropriate section to refer to. However, in connection with this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) and I feel that Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, would be the more appropriate section to refer to, because that section similarly governs the giving of notices, but it has certain advantages, in my view, over Section 196 of the Law of Property Act which, I think, make it more appropriate in this particular context of this Bill.
I do not want to delay the House a long time, and therefore I shall not read, as I might have done, Section 196 of the Law of Property Act and Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, but I should like just to remind hon. Members of what are the principal advantages of the section which I propose to incorporate in this Bill.
First of all, it is a section in an Act of Parliament which was framed specifically for the purpose of regulating relationships between landlords and tenants, and therefore Section 23 deals only with landlords and tenants, and no other persons are mentioned except landlords and tenants. Section 196 of the Law of Property Act, on the other hand, refers to a large number of other people—mortgagors and mortgagees, for example.
I think it is important that this Bill, if we can possibly make it so, should be drafted in a way which can easily be understood by the average man, because we are dealing here with people who will often have to make up their minds for themselves as to what the provisions of this Measure mean. Therefore, I think the shorter and far less complicated form of Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act has a great deal to commend it in this context.
There is another important aspect of the matter, and that is that under Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act permission is given for notices which have to be served to be served on agents for the purpose. In fact, that same provision is not repeated in Section 196

of the Law of Property Act. Often it will happen, in connection with the Bill which we are now considering, that one party or the other, the landlord or the tenant, will have to give notice to his opposite number, and frequently it will happen—very often, I expect—that the person who gives notice will be the tenant, and he will have to give it to his landlord.
Often the landlord will be a large property-owning company, an impersonal entity of that kind; therefore, I think it is important that there should be some means whereby the tenant can serve a notice upon an agent, and not have to go round to the registered office of the company, after searching perhaps through Somerset House to find out exactly where that is, and have to hand the notice over the counter, having first assured himself that the person to whom he hands the notice is one duly authorised by the company to receive it. If he can do it by serving under Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act he can serve on an agent and it will be easier for him. Those, very shortly, are the main points in support of this Amendment, which I hope the House will agree to accept.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: We think the Amendment is certainly an improvement on the Bill. We have pleasure in accepting it, and thank the hon. Gentleman for moving it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 15, line 19, at the end, to insert:
but shall include the sale of intoxicating liquor when sold on premises consisting of a restaurant to which subsection (1) of section forty-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, applies, and also the sale of meals or refreshments in such premises.
In Committee I asked the Solicitor-General the reasons why, in dealing with the definition of shops to which the Bill was to apply, there had been some difficulty in drawing the line. An ordinary restaurant where meals are served, but where no intoxicating drink of any kind is served with them, is brought within the definition of the Bill; but where any form


of intoxicants is sold under a justices' licence, as the Bill stands the restaurant is outside the Bill. Now, in between those two extremes, of the restaurant which serves no intoxicating liquor and the restaurant which has a full licence exactly the same as a public house licence, there are a number of places which serve drinks within the law but not under a justices' licence. They are clubs, bottle parties, and things of that sort. The first thing that occurred to me was that it was very hard to exclude from the benefits of this Bill the restaurant which has the full justices' licence and pays all the dues, but to allow the benefits of the Bill to the bottle party and the club which is set up with no other purpose than that of circumventing the liquor laws.
I asked what was the reason for that and I was told that it was very difficult, if one was to allow any sort of licensed premises into the Bill, to draw a line, because it was clear, for a number of reasons which are not material to the present purpose, that it was not desired to bring within the Bill public houses in the ordinary sense of the term—taverns, ale houses, or whatever they are called. The difficulty was to arrive at a definition which would include a licensed restaurant, but would not include an ale house, tavern or public house. That being the purpose, and as I understood quite clearly from the Solicitor-General that he had great sympathy with my argument that it was unfair on the licensed restaurant, and that it was only the practical difficulty which led him to resist my Amendment then, I gave a little attention to the question whether we could arrive at a definition which would bring into the Bill a licensed restaurant but exclude from the Bill public houses and taverns.
The first thing that one finds is that in law one can quite easily separate what is a restaurant from what is a tavern, public house or ale house. That has already been done. There are Acts of Parliament and documents which have come before the courts from time to time which have used the word "restaurant," which have required a restaurant to be separated from a public house, and the courts have had no difficulty in doing it. The present Lord Chancellor had no difficulty at all in the case of Lorden v. Brook-Hitching in 1927. That is the first point, that if we allow the word "restaurant" and allow the businesses to

which it applies to be brought within the Bill, there is no fear that we are bringing in public houses, because the courts have already had to face that decision and have made it.
Research went a little further and I came across the Finance Act, 1910, in which effect was given to a decision to reduce the rate of Excise Duty to licensed premises which are either restaurants or hotels which do not exist solely for the purpose of selling drink. Section 45 of that Act provides that licensed premises which are structurally adapted for use, and bona fide use, as a restaurant need pay only a reduced rate of duty. It occurred to us that this is a case where a distinction is already drawn for us in the statute, which we can use here to give effect to removing an injustice which is agreed upon on both sides of the House and to avoid the difficulty of definition.
9.45 p.m.
The attractiveness of taking the definition of that Act is that every licensee knows at once whether he is within or without the Act, because all that he has to do is to look at the receipt of the last Excise Duty which he paid, and if he paid the lower rate he is then within the Bill and if he paid the full rate he is outside it. It seems to me that, in those circumstances, where every licensee who may seek to get the benefit of the Bill has become entitled to such a file in his office, it is absurd not to give him the benefit of it and to exclude him because we say that we cannot provide a proper definition.

Mr. Powell: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that it is within the general intention of this Bill that premises where a liquor trade is not the primary element of trade carried on in the premises should be regarded as a shop for the purposes of the Bill. The whole problem is to discover the means of drawing a distinction. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, that distinction has been drawn in a certain way by the Finance Act, 1910, which is at present applied under Statutory Instrument No. 208 of 1927, which prescribes in the case of a restaurant that the dividing line shall be that three-fifths of the business is concerned with intoxicating liquor.
I think that the provisions of the 1910 Act and of that Statutory Instrument show that it is possible to find—indeed, it has already been possible to find—a dividing line between the type of premises which should be regarded as a shop and those which should not. I would add that there is admittedly a certain inconvenience in applying to any Bill of this kind dealing with the law of property a definition in the Finance Act, and that if the Government were to express themselves as favourable to the principle of finding a dividing line, it might be more convenient if that dividing line were written into this Bill rather than attach it to the term of the Finance Act which can be altered according to the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from year to year.

The Solicitor-General: We feel that there is a serious difficulty about accepting the definition proposed. The difficulty arises in this way. Because of various technical reasons, which I will not go into, a great many restaurants have not, in fact, availed themselves of the conditions of Section 45 (1) of the 1910 Act, which accordingly does not apply to them. The result is that if we adopted this definition it would operate entirely capriciously. Some restaurants which supply drink would be excluded and some included, according to whether or not they avail themselves of the provision of that Act.
On the other hand, we feel that it is somewhat illogical to include restaurants in this Bill and, at the same time, to exclude those restaurants the terms of whose licences apply only to the consumption of liquor with meals. One is the restaurant where one can get a glass of sherry in the foyer, such as the Hungaria Restaurant in London. On the other hand, there are restaurants where drink is served solely with meals and there is no independent provision of alcoholic liquor. I would ask the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment to be so good as to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment upon this understanding.
While I cannot give any undertaking that any change will be made so as to introduce restaurants of the type I have described, we will, nevertheless, carefully consider between now and the later stages, in another place, whether we can, con-

sistently with the purposes of the Bill, find words which will bring in those restaurants which stand on the same footing as those within the scope of the Bill. I trust that hon. Members will realise the difficulty of selecting restaurants which stand on the same footing as those at present included and will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO SECTION 2.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 16, line 24, to leave paragraph 4, and to insert:
4. Where, in relation to any tenancy to which section two of this Act would have applied if the tenancy had not expired before the commencement of this Act any order or judgment has been made or given by a court before the commencement of this Act, and has not been executed, and in the opinion of the court the order or judgment would not have been made or given if at the time thereof this Act had been in operation, the court may on application by the tenant rescind or vary the order or judgment in such manner as the court thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.
This matter was fully discussed and argued during the Committee stage, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman then said that he would look into the point again. The point of the Amendment can be summed up in one sentence. It will not affect the principles of the Bill. It gives some flexibility to the courts. I trust that without further argument the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to say he will accept the Amendment.

Sir P. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I did undertake to consider this very carefully and, having fulfilled that promise quite loyally, I cannot really see any situation in which the change would be of service to any of the parties involved. I think that the Schedule does all that is really necessary. It would simply mean putting the parties to extra expense to have the recourse to the courts without the courts being able to do anything in response to the application made.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 16, line 44, leave out "continuation of the tenancy," and insert:
circumstances specified in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act.
In page 17, line 4, leave out "continuation of the tenancy," and insert:
circumstances specified in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Orders of the Day — LONG LEASES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3.—(RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF IRRITANCY, ETC.)

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall affect the landlord's right to resumption of possession or to damages if on application to the sheriff by the landlord the sheriff has decided that, having regard to the circumstances of the lease and the obligations of good estate management and of neighbourly conduct, it is just and equitable that the landlord should exercise his rights.
In this spirit of sweet reasonableness which prevails, we trust that the Lord Advocate will look with favour on this Amendment. If he can indicate that he will look with favour on it, or that he will consider it sympathetically between now and the later stages, I shall be most happy to resume my seat. He casts a frosty eye on me. I do not wish to detain the House, but surely nothing more reasonable than the proposal we are putting forward could be imagined. I am sure that it would be to the advantage of the tenant far more than anyone else. The Lord Advocate indicated during our proceedings in Committee that a remedy was left to the landlord, but it was the sledgehammer method of interdict. The only result it could have would be the ejection of the tenant from the house. This seems to us to be unnecessarily harsh, and therefore we have suggested the most reasonable proposal that if the landlord applies to the sheriff and the

sheriff decides that the case is just and reasonable, there might be a case of damages given against the tenant instead of this extreme procedure of throwing him out of the house. That proposal seemed to have a certain amount of sympathy even from Members opposite, and I trust that the Lord Advocate will see his way to meet us.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the arguments on this topic were fully deployed during the Committee stage. We even went to a Division on this point or a point of similar substance. The reason for resisting the Amendment is that we wish to preserve the right of all the tenants during the two-year interregnum when the Bill operates. The interdict process would not have the result of ejecting the tenant from the house, but would be utilised merely to prevent the tenant from continuing a breach of the conditions of the lease.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can only speak again by leave of the House and I shall be very short. We might as well conclude this, because there is no use bandying arguments with each other, but I might say that the point was thoroughly disposed of by one of my hon. and learned Friends at an earlier stage. When the Lord Advocate says that the Bill is merely temporary, I would remind him of the French proverb that nothing lasts like the provisional. We have had many examples of the truth of that proverb in the past. I am sure that the Lord Advocate will sympathise with me in the contention that I am making, but I do not believe we shall have seen the end of this matter within the two-year period which is proposed, because rights are being definitely invaded. Perhaps, in another place, it may be that arguments will be deployed still more powerful than those which I have been able to introduce, and with a greater majority to back them. I trust that the Lord Advocate will not be obdurate when the Bill comes back to us from men learned in the law, from the other end of the corridor.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — ST. ANDREW'S SCHOOL, TOTTERIDGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: The question I want to raise tonight refers to St. Andrew's School, Totteridge. Although this is a matter that relates primarily to a particular school it may well be of general interest, and I hope in the course of the arguments that I shall bring forward that the general application of the principles involved may become a little apparent.
St. Andrew's School is a junior mixed infants' school and is an aided school. It is, in fact, the only grant-aided school in the Totteridge district. It was built about 1939 and the school buildings are of a remarkably high standard. It is really a magnificent school. It was designed originally for 150 pupils and it is now regarded by the local education authority as suitable for the education of 170 pupils. Already, the school population is exceeding 170 and it is climbing quite steeply. The number at present is a little over 190, and in a year or two it will exceed 200. The number is moving upward and it is becoming a very urgent matter to provide additional school—
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

Mr. Maudling: It is becoming a matter of great urgency to provide additional school accommodation in this area. I will give two examples. In the first instance, accommodation in the school is cramped. In one case at any rate two classes are having to share the same classroom, which is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, while there is a considerable waiting period of five months, which will probably be extended, before children of five can enter the school.
The reasons for the overcrowding are, broadly speaking, two in number. The first is the natural growth of the population within the existing area which the school serves. The second is that in this type of area the weight of taxation in

recent years has forced a number of parents, who would otherwise have paid for their children's education at private schools, to send them to grant-aided schools. For those two main reasons the school is overcrowded. It is not a question of the school trying to perform different functions or serving a wider area. It is the natural growth of the population and the pressure of economic circumstances that cause the school at the moment to be thoroughly overcrowded. It is a matter of some urgency that new provisions should be made.
There are two ways in which this problem can be met. Either the school can be extended or a new school built in the same district. The local education authority, considering the alternatives, in the first instance were inclined to support the erection of a new school, but, subsequently, they have changed their minds and now the local education authority agree that an enlarged school would be the best solution. I should like for a moment or two to examine the implications of these two alternatives—the extension of the existing school or the building of a new one.
As to the first of the educational implications, if a new school were built it would be a half form entry school, which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would agree is not a satisfactory solution. On the other hand, if the present school were extended to take a school population of about 240, which is generally agreed as the maximum existing school population in this area, that would provide a school unit which would be the right size for a junior mixed infant school in this area. The educational arguments in favour of an extension rather than the building of a new school are very strong.
Next, there are the economic implications. I am advised by the local education authority that the building of a new school would cost about £25,000 and the cost of the extension would be only £10,000. Of that sum £5,000 would be borne by the managers and the church authorities. Looking at it from the point of view of the national economy, it is the difference between £25,000 and £10,000, and from the point of view of the public purse the difference between £25,000 and £5,000. In these days when estimates are rising and there is the immense need to develop the maximum economy, surely


it is very important not to spend £25,000 for an inferior article when a much better article, educationally speaking, would be got for £10,000 or £5,000 to the public purse.
There is the further point of the cost of maintenance. Obviously, it must be more expensive in overheads to maintain two schools to do the job which one school could do. If a new school is built, the public purse will be responsible for not only the interior maintenance but also the exterior maintenance, whereas if the present school is extended the whole of the exterior maintenance will continue to fall on the managers and ony the interior maintenance on the public purse. It is irrefutable that from the economic point of view the extension of the existing school is far better than the building of a new school. I do not think that the Minister will challenge—I hope he will not—that on both educational and economic grounds there are very strong arguments for extending the existing school.
There is a further point in favour of the extension alternative, and that is local public opinion. A poll was taken by the local ratepayers' association, which distributed a form of voting paper to every household in the district. The returns showed an overwhelming measure of support for the extension of the existing school. The very large number of people who took the trouble to return the form showed conclusively that the great majority of the local people wished to have the extension rather than the new school. The case for the extension, therefore, rests on the grounds of educational advantage, economic advantage and the desires and wishes of the population in the district.
The attitude of the Minister is that, while he is prepared to approve this school as part of the development plan for the area, he is not prepared to make any grant under the Education Act, 1944, towards the' cost of the extension because, under Section 67 (4) of the Act, he has deemed the extension to be sufficient to represent a new school. As far as I can see, it is entirely at the discretion of the Minister to decide that. He says that he believes the extension to be such as to constitute the construction of an entirely new school and that he is thereby precluded from making any grant whatsoever. That is the point to which I wish to direct the Minister's attention.
How can this extension represent a new school? The school remains the same entity. It has the same individual and organic life that any school develops over the period of its existence. It has the same buildings and the same site; it serves the same homes; it will draw children from the same district; it will serve children of precisely the same ages, it will provide precisely the same curriculum, and there will be no change in the school managers, the headmaster, the staff or the name of the school. How, therefore, can the Minister argue that in those circumstances the extension proposed to the physical building constitutes the changing of the existing school into a new school? One could raise many metaphysical arguments about when the change of an article produces a new article. In studying philosophy I was always interested in the problem of how long one had to darn an existing sock before the darning constituted a new sock.

Mr. Logan: Can the hon. Member tell me whether, if the school is not built, there will be accommodation in the neighbourhood for the children?

Mr. Maudling: No. I was trying to make that point. The school population is already 194, while the accommodation available is suitable for only 170, and the school population will rise over the next few years to about 240. I do not see how in the normal usage of the English language an extension of that kind can be described as changing the existing school into a new school. I hope the Minister will answer that point.
What are the criteria on which this judgment is based? What is the fact which determines when an extension becomes a new school? After all, a school is a living entity, it has a life of its own, an individual existence of its own. How can a new school come into being unless some radical change is made either in the staff or the numbers or the scope or the type or the curriculum or something that really affects the life of the school itself? On what grounds has the Minister decided that this extension constitutes a new school?
The consequences of the decision of the Minister are these. He has decided in what appears to me to be his unfettered


discretion—I cannot see that he is compelled by the Act to decide one way or the other—that this constitutes a new school and that, therefore, he cannot make any grant. He may say that if the local population feels so strongly why should they not, instead of putting up £5,000, put up the whole £10,000? That is not practicable. Five thousand pounds is a large sum of money to raise, and it should be remembered that this school was built as recently as 1939 at the expense of the district, and a very fine and expensive school building it was.
To raise the whole £10,000, in my opinion and in the opinion of the managers, would not be practicable nor would they feel justified in asking the local public to provide the whole cost of the extension, bearing in mind all the circumstances which I have been trying to explain. Therefore, the result of the decision of the Minister that he cannot make a grant of £5,000 towards the extension of the school will be that a new school will have to be built at a cost of £25,000 to the public purse, national and local combined.
The Minister may argue that if he were prepared to agree in this case that the extension did not constitute a new school, this would be setting a precedent which would have to be followed in many other cases. I do not consider that to be a good argument. It is only a good argument insofar as the other cases he has in mind are exactly similar to this one. If the other cases he has in mind are not exactly similar, his argument does not apply. If they are exactly similar then in those cases as well he must have this combination of circumstances; that it is educationally desirable to have an extension rather than a new school, that it is economically desirable to have an extension rather than a new school, and that public opinion locally favours this alternative. If those three conditions are fulfilled I suggest that in all other cases as well it is obviously the duty of the Minister to determine that this is an extension, not a new school, and to agree to provide a 50 per cent. grant towards the development.
To sum up, this is a local problem but one of keen and intense interest to the people living in the Totteridge area and its implications stretch beyond the im-

mediate neighbourhood. The argument rests on three points: that we have to decide between an extension of an existing school and the building of a new school; that on educational grounds it is better to extend the existing school to a size which will permit a 240—that is a one form—entry rather than to build a new school on a wholly unsatisfactory basis with a half form entry; that on grounds of national and local economy it is better to have a £10,000 extension than a £25,000 new building, and that local opinion has expressed itself strongly in favour of the extension rather than a new building.
The Minister has discretion under Section 67 (4) to decide whether or not this constitutes a new building. He has so far determined, for reasons which I have not been able to understand and which have not been explained, that this is to be regarded as a new building. The effects of such a decision are that a lot of money will be wasted in producing a new school which the people in the district do not want. If that is the inevitable result of the present legislation it is about time that we had some new legislation.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Logan: A principle is at stake here, and before the Minister gives any decision I should like him seriously to consider the point. This school problem has been a very great problem for many years. I have never spoken to the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and only heard his views as he expressed them a few moments ago, but the principle at issue applies also to schools in other constituencies.
I believe that the school in question is a Church school and is aided. Those living in the area have a right to obtain education at the school. If there is an influx of children into the area, the inhabitants have a right to have a school to meet their requirements. Therefore, either a State-aided or other school must be provided. The children are already in the district, and for the life of me I cannot understand why a new building has to be put up when an extension to the existing school at a cost of £5,000 or £6,000 would meet the difficulty.
This problem will come up again at a very early date, and I should like my


hon. Friend, before he gives a decision, seriously to consider the possibility of granting permission for an extension to an existing school where the demands for education make this necessary. It would take me a long time to deal with the question of education, and I do not intend to do so now. I simply make the observation at this stage that there is something more far-reaching at issue than appears on the surface. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Barnet, who has raised this matter, and I hope that the Minister will be equally sympathetic.

10.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): The hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) knows that the question which he has raised tonight is a problem which in one form or another has been before us and before the parents and children of his constituency since the beginning of 1949. The hon. Member has been actively interested in the matter by correspondence and by Parliamentary Questions for the last six months. This, therefore, is an opportunity for me to explain to him and to the House why the decision which he questions has been made.
It is a fundamental principle of the Education Act that, subject to certain special considerations, grant is not paid on the new provision of voluntary schools but is paid on improvements and certain repairs in existing schools. This makes it essential that somebody should decide at what stage the enlargement of an existing denominational school becomes new provision. It is obvious that, although some bodies would like it to be so, all the minor enlargements cannot be regarded as mere additions to existing provision and therefore eligible for grant. If all such minor enlargements could be treated in that way, managers or governing bodies could add two or three classrooms in one year, one or two in the following year, another classroom or two in the year after that, and so on. In the end, they could get a whole school built through a series of minor enlargements—as the official jargon puts it, this "creeping enlargement."
There is nothing new in the principle which is being questioned tonight. My right hon. Friend is acting upon a prin-

ciple which has been part of Education Acts since 1918 and, as far as my researches go, possibly as far back as 1902. The President of the one-time Board of Education had all this to decide in certain cases—whether enlargement of an existing voluntary school meant the provision of a new school. Obviously it would be unfair to act upon a rule of thumb or upon a yardstick, and therefore my right hon. Friend takes into account all the circumstances in particular cases. Each case is judged on its merits and not according to a set formula. For example, my right hon. Friend has to consider the extent of the enlargement, and how many classrooms, which in turn depends upon the size of the original school. Other recent additions must be taken into consideration. He must take into account the effect of such enlargements on the character of the school. Such enlargements might change its nature and its purpose, and therefore, would make it absurd to say that it was just an enlargement.
That is the background from which the Ministerial decision emerges, so we come at once to the particular example about which the hon. Gentleman has been speaking tonight, the school at St. Andrew's, Totteridge. The numbers have risen from 75 to a peak of 193 and the school was given aided status on 1st March. 1950.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: For what period?

Mr. Hardman: The period was from 1939 to 5th February of this year. The proposal is that the school should become a one-form entry junior and infants' school with a full size of seven classes, which means 280 pupils as a total enrolment. The suggestion which was rejected was the proposal of the earlier managers for a new county infants' school to be provided, leaving St. Andrew's to provide for the juniors.
My right hon. Friend has considered whether the proposal constitutes a new school within the meaning of Section 67 (4) of the Act of 1944. Neither he nor I would dispute that the enlargement of St. Andrew's School would be the most satisfactory solution from the educational point of view and from the point of view of economics, although I cannot agree with the figures which have been given


the House tonight. I am not prepared to admit that the cost to public funds would be anything like as low as £5,000 and that the difference would be an expenditure between £5,000 and £25,000. My information, given approximately, would point to the fact mat the sum at stake will be considerably more than £5,000 or the gross expenditure of £10,000 which the hon. Gentleman mentioned this evening.
At the same time, on educational grounds and form the point of view of some economy there is undoubtedly a case, although I am bound to admit that this is not the point of the decision which has been made. My right hon. Friend has to abide by the parent Education Act, 1944. He has to abide by the principles enumerated thereunder, although it is true, as the hon. Member said, that he has full freedom to consider each case on its merits without the use of a formula. I cannot do more than quote the answer already given to the hon. Member on 15th February last. My right hon. Friend said:
In determining such questions I take into account all the circumstances, including the proposed increase in numbers in relation to the size of the school, any recent previous enlargement, and any consequential change in the character of the school."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 592.]

Mr. Maudling: How could he possibly take into account previous enlargements in considering whether the present addition constitutes a new school compared with the present building?

Mr. Hardman: For the reason I have already given, that previous additions to the school must be taken into consideration. Otherwise, there would be sufficient additions over a period of years to constitute a new school.

Mr. Maudling: Surely the word "new" in the Act of 1944 means new compared with the status quo in 1944?

Mr. Hardman: That may be, and I am not prepared to argue the definition of the word "new" as employed in that Act. But in the consideration of this case, we have tried to weigh up, within the responsibility which the Minister has to legislation made by Parliament, the various issues that are at stake, and to take into consideration not only the local

feeling which my hon. Friend has mentioned but also the consequential change, from the additions that have been made, in the character of the school.
Again, it must be admitted that it is extremely difficult now, as it has been in the past, to deal with the case of the school slowly increasing in numbers and overcrowding its existing premises and then building to accommodate the increased numbers adequately. But the general principle involved in this case is clearly stated in words used by my right hon. Friend in the Estimates debate of last May, when he said that the fundamental principle of the 1944 settlement
was that public money should be available to assist the Churches to provide up-to-date accommodation for the pupils already attending voluntary schools, but that no public money should be available for the provision of new and additional Church school accommodation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1925.]
It follows, whether this principle is right or wrong, that there must be some way of setting a limit to alterations for which managers or governers receive grant under Section 102. Such means of setting a limit I have tried to explain in dealing with the case that has been raised tonight.

Mr. Logan: Was that not applicable only to new schools but not to an extension of an existing school?

Mr. Hardman: No, the agreement reached was an agreement which concerned all denominational schools, and the Minister is, under the Act, bound by the compromise then reached and incorporated in the Act of 1944. If there is to be a change either through administration or amending legislation, it must be a change that affects all denominations and not simply one.

Mr. Maudling: Does the settlement to which the hon. Gentleman refers limit in any way the discretion given to the Minister under Section 67?

Mr. Hardman: No. The Minister, as has been pointed out, has this discretion, but he has to consider every case on its merits, and he is obviously limited by what the Act allows him to do. Viewing this case sympathetically, he has come to the conclusion that he cannot accede to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Barnet or of those who from an


educational point of view, etc., made the point put to the hon. Member in his constituency.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: We have certainly had a very disappointing reply. I should have thought that the overriding reason for the discretion given to the Minister was so that he could take into account the economic needs of the country at any particular time. I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary's admission that this extension could be brought about with a great saving of money compared with the cost of building a new school would have been the consideration which ought to

have been at the top of the list of priorities in making this decision. While the Parliamentary Secretary did not agree with the figure of £5,000 as against £25,000 for a new school, he admitted that there would be quite a big difference, if not of the £20,000 mentioned by my right hon. Friend. I should like to feel even now—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.